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.

 

Were the Buildings wired????

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Before anyone yells at me, I am reposting a recent post I made, hoping to get more reponses. I thought maybe a change of the thread name might bring more of a reaction .

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




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I'm not sure what to think. I doubt your view will have any sway. Any such act has to be sinister, that is what make a good conspiracy theory. Someone has to be blamed, be it the evil muslims (by the debunkers) or the evil baby eating elite (the 'truthers')



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
No.

The buildings were not 'wired' to explode.

Between the crashes and resulting fires, weakened key areas and, like a house of cards, it collapsed.

The fires and 'melted-steel' (which was of various metals...not just steel)
stayed hot due to the kinetic enrgy released by the collapse and the insulation factor provided by tons and tons of rubble.

Get over it. The US was caught with it's pants down at we were hit by terrorists.

Of course the CT'ers will say I'm a government shill or sheep, yet when ever proof is presented which they can not 'de-bunk' or twist to their agenda they tend to conveniently ignore or start personal attackes.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   



Between the crashes and resulting fires, weakened key areas and, like a house of cards, it collapsed.

This is the best line I have ever read in while. I never tought it like that, you might have found the solution everyone was looking for. They felt because they were made like an house of cards.
Thank you now I can go back asleep, wake me up when the world makes sense.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The buildings were not 'wired' to explode.


You know this as fact how?


Between the crashes and resulting fires, weakened key areas and, like a house of cards, it collapsed.


You know this as fact how?


The fires and 'melted-steel' (which was of various metals...not just steel)
stayed hot due to the kinetic enrgy released by the collapse and the insulation factor provided by tons and tons of rubble.


Psh...kinetic energy melted the steel...ok.


Get over it. The US was caught with it's pants down at we were hit by terrorists.


Terrorists yes. What allegience the terrorists have is another question.


yet when ever proof is presented which they can not 'de-bunk'


OK. Put up or shut up. Show the proof.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I am not saying this is how it happend. I am really more or less looking for views as to ...would be acceptable if the buildings were brought down with a controlled explosion in order to save the lives of others? I am not trying to spread dis-information or start a new debate.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   


buildings would be loaded with charges, that if attacked and the attack was serious enough, the building could be brought down safely.


Brought down safely??? 2 110 story buildings! Consider the scope of
destruction! Also what about the building engineers - Frank Demartini,
Pablo Ortiz, Tony Savas? They were responsible for all building alterations
and to inspect the work to ensure it was up to code. They knew every
inch of both buildings. Don't you think would have spotted anything
unusual? Like explosives planted in the building? When the plane
struck North Tower Demartini was on 88th floor, just below impact.
He checked the area after impact and directed people from his floor toward
the stairs (including his wife). When all were safe went back up to check
for survivors, he and Ortiz rescued some 50 people from floors above
them. All died in North Tower.

How would your supposed explosives be detonated? Radio signals don't
work well in tall buildings - consider fireman who couldn't communicate.
Real demolition experts use Det Cord (Cordex), tubing filled with explosive
PETN to transmitt detonation. In real demolition thousands of feet of it
are used - I suppose you are going to claim "Larry the Cable Guy" and
his buddies wired the building.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
If you'd Google "911 Mysteries" which is due out in 'Borders' book stores and the like very soon,
you'll have your answers regarding how and when the towers were were wired including "the pulled Building" ( Silverstein's own verbal slip ) at 5:21PM, #7.

In all probability, the 23rd floor of building #7 was the command post used for the event.
It was super-reinforced, hermetically sealed, and had it's own power ,water ,and air supply loaded with high end surveillance and communications equipment.

This was Rudy's FEMA Command Center, the one he never visited all day, while the small fires destroying all the SEC Records on World Com and ENRON (and other files on Corporate Fraud charges), did their work.

Then Google FDNY's John Schroeder and follow it with William Rodriguez.
Coffee will not be necessary nor arguing cold facts.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
i dont think they would deliberately plant explosives in 911 for "safely bringing it down" because they killed 2,000 people in doing so. anyone with any value for human life would do otherwise. and how did they know the building would come down? It was built to stand an attack like this.

you sound like you were around the buildings the time of the colapse and there was an explosion before each of the towers colapsed. did you happen to hear them?

plus, if they wired the twin towers, they had some idea that it would be attacked. that or every building in the area must be wired with a charge to "humanely uthanize" the building and everyone in it in the case of an emergency. If you're theory is correct i have no business in visiting new york.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Yes I was in the vicinity of the collapses. I was outside the buildings when the first plane hit, less that half a block a way. I saw the second plane hit. Did I hear explosions? With all that was going on, the sirens, the screaming and actually seeing people jump out of the buiildings....No, I did not hear any explosions. Once the first building began to fall, I honestly don;t remember much about it beyond that. The next thing I really can say I remember was walking across the 59th street bridge to Long Island and catching a ride with some guy I never saw in my life before that day. He was in the area when I got off the bridge and he picked up 6 people. He was nice enough to take us all home that day and would not take a tip. I was the last one he dropped off and he said he was going back to pick up others. We were all covered in soot and got the inside of his car filthy. I thank him and all the others I met along my trek that day from lower Manhattan to the bridge. We ran into many store owners who brought us water and snacks along the way. NYC never acted as a city of friends, until that day. So if I take things a bit personal I am sorry, but I never saw complete acts of selflessness like I did that day in NYC.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Real demolition experts use Det Cord (Cordex), tubing filled with explosive
PETN to transmitt detonation. In real demolition thousands of feet of it
are used - I suppose you are going to claim "Larry the Cable Guy" and
his buddies wired the building.


Look into fibre optics. There is a thread here about it. It is possible to wire for detonation using fibre optics. And yes, it has been said that "Larry the Cable Guy" was upgrading the cables for internet etc. Hmmm...cables, fibre optics? Could be.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I am not saying this is how it happend. I am really more or less looking for views as to ...would be acceptable if the buildings were brought down with a controlled explosion in order to save the lives of others? I am not trying to spread dis-information or start a new debate.


Its an age old philosophical debate. Is it right to sacrifice a few to save many?

I dont think there is a right answer to the question.

I think some of those being sacrificed would not think it was right. Maybe even some that were saved would not think it was right.

If given the chance Im sure some that were saved would change places with those that were sacrificed.

If the buildings were prewired for a controlled demolition, I dont think it was to saves the lives of others but rather to save the property of others.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I deeply feel for thee situation that has happend. But I find it extremely out of order to say that they demolished 110 floors x 2 with life in them because of small fires on 15 floors. Safe implosions maybe possible but that is not what the reports, media, or government are telling us.

On the other hand you are right, there were explosions and devices in the buildings, but why has no ever said anything about it. Anyone with eyes can see the all buildings were "pulled" in an incorrect order of which should have been structurely weaker. It sounds to me like the secret arm of the government hired a special team to enforce the plan to induce more fear, more histeria and create the problem to fix the problem.

WAR!
on terror
ie: go to war afraid

WAR!
on drugs
ie: go to war HIGH on drugs

Brain
on drugs
ie: you get my point

Muscles
on streoids

What are we on this month.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by writeb4youreyes]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
i really like this theory.. however after all these lies from all angles... even if the charges were originally intended to bring the building down instead of letting it topple over... they obviously exploited the event to pass anti-terrorism laws.

So regardless of the original intent, a conspiracy has taken place.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I've always been a little bothered by the timing of the falls. IF they were demoed, why do it when they did it? Any reason to wait so long after the planes hit? Why did they not fall in the order they were hit?

And the "pull it" comment. If he knew it was wired, why have any firefighters in there at all? That was more than a "slip" that was a statement. If "they" had gone through all that trouble to demolish the buildings and make it look like terrorism, why would Silverstein state that in a matter of fact manner?

And bombs. Isn't it possible there were bombs on the planes that added to the destruction?

Just some thoughts...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I remember seeing a doumentary a few years ago where an architectural student was working on a project that involved him looking at the plans for some large new building in new york. He noticed that the plans called for certain reinforcing structures in the building were supposed to be welded and bolted. Once in the building itself he noticed that these elements were only bolted together.
He got in touch with the architect and told him about what he found, and the arcitect told him there was no wasy the building was built that way, so he personally checked it out and sure enough where there were supposed to welded & bolted connections they were only bolted. The construction contractor had decided that the bolts were only needed to save costs. They even changed the the onsite working dwgs to reflect the new but incorrect method of contstruction, after the plans had been approved by the gov. agencies.
The architect did some calcs and found that in their current state the buildings would have fallen down in a very strong wind event, like a hurricane. The building owners and the architect decided that they would weld the joints up as they were supposed to be. They hired every available welder on the east coast and VERY quietly got the joints welded, in an already complete and occupied building, after hrs and on the weekends. Nobody out side of the project new that it occured at all.
They got the buildings done just in time as a hurricane actually came very close to new york.
I dont believe this building was the wtc, but at the end of the documentary the architect said that there were a couple other very large buildings that had the same construction flaw, and that to his knowledge they hadnt been fixed . Maybe that set of building was the wtc.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
If the Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and they carried it out with demolition teams, holograms, remote controllers, people posing as passengers, it seems that there would have to be a lot of people very trustworthy or eliminated. Wouldn't it be easier and a lot less messy just to help 19 terrorists do the dirty work and get their 17 virgins.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wsamplet
 

It would have been easier. It would have been simpler. The problem is, it wouldn't have come with a guarantee. Big plans were riding on this. A lot of doorways had to be taped open for this event to happen in a way that could be guaranteed. IMHO.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


Regardless of whatever story someone saw, one time, somewhere... Structural steel does not just "collapse." Most structures don't have reinforced welds, man. I've worked on power plants, water treatment facilities, and conveyor towers. There's welding fabrication done all the time but usually it's torqued nuts and bolts. If a building has been standing that long with no issue but a fire manifests itself in the middle.. it's not going to topple the entire building. In my experiences, even with simple structures steel is kind of interwoven, not just simply up and down. The strength of the natural pressure due onto itself is very tense providing some natural stability in it' own right... It wouldn't just one day implode at freefall speeds because of a "Class A" fire. Especially when it hasn't been affected by anything structurally.


There's no defending building 7. As skeptical as I am.. There's just no way the inspection of that buildng was so relaxed. I was working on an R.O. room in a water treatment facility that required 240v outlets for tig welders or what have you. You can drill through the flange or the "webbing" of the beam as long as you don't cause damage to the existing welds to maintain the integrity of the steel. One of our guys had drilled "too close" to the weld and had to wallow out the hole, have a certified welder spot fill the hole and a certified inspector watching the entire process. On an industrial building, no less. I doubt that given the prime location of the site and it's classifiation as a "commercial" building, WTC 1, 2, and 7 would be held to the highest regulation standards. They treat buildings that would harbor life a lot more serious than those for production and its been ridiculous on the job sites I've been on.


Hopefully this is helpful one way or another..



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
i say YES,..they were wired to blow up...there were 4 or 5 (?) different things going on...angle charges on the many massive core steel...some kind of exlosives to pulverize all the concret...and pulverize everything else...thermate canesters,..like one where that damning, drippy,..molten metal came down the side of the building...for all the world to see...they hustled off all the evidence...those folks in charge of that removal should all be up on charges..



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join