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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Was the World Trade Center "wired" to implode?

Until recently I would have thought the idea was insane, absurd even.

But I have since come to the conclusion that either those buildings were professionally prepared to be "brought down" in an emergency; or everyone who witnessed the collapse of the WTC towers that awful day witnessed an occurance of a statistical impropability so extreme, that it plausibly serves as quantifiable proof of the existence of a benevelent Diety.


At any given moment, it is entirely within the realm of statistical probability that either one of the twin towers could have collapsed as the result of the type and extent of the damage inflicted by a jumbo jet impact.

Remember, when the towers were designed, airplanes the size of those that were used that day as "guided-missles", didn't even exist as rough plans on the drawing board. And although the WTC architects considered the possibility of an aircraft strike in their designs; the planes they designed against were considerably smaller than what actually hit on 9/11.

The damage resulting from an impact far exceding even the worst-case scenarios could easily have resulted a complete structural collapse.

And, although it would stretch the limits of probability, it is statisticaly possible that such a collapse might have been contained entirely within the general footprint of the tower.

Once in a life-time, perhaps.


But what we saw on 9/11, was the total collapse of Both towers, after having suffered what on the surface might appear to have been similar impacts, but which in fact, due to the multitude of "real-world" variables inherent in any two or more separate real world occurances, were in no way similar to any servicable degree.

Now exceeding the realm of rational probability, having suffered extensive, but, by the very nature of the method employed, dis-similar damage, both towers not only collapse, but the collapse of each tower

is "miraculously" contained within each buildings' general footprint!


And, as if this is not enough to completely boggle the mind, these miraculous collapses occur not over eons, or even decades,

But within mere minutes of each other!


I beg some one with an adept education in statistics/probability to calculate the odds of such an occurance.



So yes, I, too, now believe that the WTC was wired to "self-destruct" in an effort to minimize the potential devastation of an "uncontrolled" collapse.

I think that the undertaking was the direct result of the 1993 attack on the towers. I am certain that the contingency was at least vetted by federal officials, perhaps without the knowledge of state, city, or emergency personnel. In fact, I doubt that even the building's owner would have been privy to the plan.

It is even possible that the installing technicians were not aware of what they were actually doing; they need only be given the neccessary materials (perhaps disguised to look like optic cable) and a plans for the proper installation.

Absolute secrecy would be required: who would knowingly work, on a daily basis, in a building wired to implode on command? How could a building's owner ever manage to insure such a structure? What of the gov't's liability regarding those victims unable to escape before the order to demo was given? The litigation could easily topple a sitting administration.


MY biggest question, however is this:

What Other structures might also be "prepped" for "surgical, controlled implosion" should the "need" arise?

Is Your office "wired"?




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   
There are photos of the plane and one of them shows that one of the planes had something attached underneath it that should not have been there, I'll post a link if I can find it. I have always thought that planes were used, but I also believe that explosives were in the buildings.

In doing some research I found where there was a fire in 1975 in one of the WTC's (best I can recall) a picture from then shows that there were areas that were left open on every floor and for authorized personnel to fix or install wiring or cables, so it would not be impossible to think that the cables and the explosives could have been placed in these areas without anyone being aware, they could have been bought up without much notice by people transporting them covered up in bins, no one would have noticed.

Here is a video that actually shows the light from the explosions through the smoke as they go off, if it looks like thousands of sparklers inside the WTC, this is an amazing video and it also allows you to hear the explosions, This is a 9 minute and 16 sec. clip from a movie, believe it is worth watching. Once you see this most people never have to wonder again if there were explosives inside the building. Watch and tell me what you think.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
The YouTube video contained some 'light flashes' that I've never seen before, especially they're perfect verticle arrangment the way they sequentially light up.

However, whenever I start talking to people about 9/11 and and associated theories, I always tell them to look up the story of William Rodriguez.

For me, his story makes the 'no plane' arguments seem kind of redundant.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I think we should look at the facts.


Opportunity
1) In the weeks before 9/11 the towers were put into a blackout every night. Everything was shut off, including the security system, during those hours every night, anything could have happened and there would have been no security footage of it.

2) A few days before 9/11 the bomb dogs were abruptly removed from the buildings and not allowed to go back in. Could one of the dogs had sniffed out a bomb, and they were removed so as not to raise suspicion with the workers in the towers?

3) Who was in control of security at the twin towers, and who's contract just happen to end Sept 11,2001? Why that would be Marvin Bush, Pres. Bush's youngest brother.

Fact 1 provides opportunity to plant explosives. Fact 3 provides to suspicion of explosives in the building, which needs to be explained by those who removed the dogs. Fact 3 provides a link to others in high places of power.

Motive
PNAC documents from a year before 9/11 titled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century" talk about invading the middle east and setting up a permanent military presence there. This document is 90 pages long, so i will just put some of the highlights in here.


“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”


the documents then goes on to talk about how to get the people behind the invasion of the middle east.



“The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”


This provides a motive for 9/11, which would be the Pearl Harbour event.

Weapon
Well there is alot of debate as to what actually brought down the towers. So lets try and keep to facts.
Yes planes did hit the towers...however...those towers were designed to take multiple impacts from commercial jets. And even if one tower did fall from a jet hitting it, the chances of the second tower not only falling aswell, but falling the exact same way as the first one is absurdly high. The fact that the towers fell at free fall speeds is impossible with the pancake theory that they gave us.

Could have been explosives ... could have been an energy weapon ... but whatever it was that brought the towers down, it wasn't because of the planes hitting the towers. The planes hitting the towers was the distraction, like a magician's slight of hand tricks. And it wasn't from fire buring inside, fire just can't get hot enough to melt or even weaken steal in an open area like that. It would take blast furnance temperatures to melt steel.

These facts are publicly available to look up for yourself. I suggest everyone does just that, and doesn't just believe or not believe these things because someone told them to you.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Im going to spam the link to the documentary I believe answers a lot of questions about 9/11 as a inside job. It ties into Dekieons post and more.

OP, have a look, specially at the "new security system" which was installed in the building prior to 9/11, as well as the rigged investigation, as well as who really benefited, as well as... well. Every part is important actually.

9/11 Coincidences



[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thedman: watch "911Mysteries-the demolitions" Google it or go to 911essentials dot com
You'll find your answers there if you really want one.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wsamplet
 



Wouldn't it be easier and a lot less messy just to help 19 terrorists do the dirty work and get their 17 virgins.


I think that, if 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, then this is broadly the core around which the operation was designed.

By using foreign agents - a modern-day mujahideen - those responsible could have orchestrated a MIHOP but disguised it as a LIHOP for damage limitation purposes in the event that evidence linking them in some way to the tragedy came to light.

That's not to say the WTC towers weren't brought down in a controlled manner, nor that some of the other alternative theories don't warrant examination, however.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


I really hope your not getting paid to write. Are you a cubical spook? Where did you go to college? Are you just getting tired of trying to debunk the worst crime this country has ever seen?

Keep trying,

Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Rudy, is this you?

Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
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.



Touche

I' ll add
And who are these anti-terrorism laws directed against .
Patriots or Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
where all of the alleged Hi-jackers came from
which Leads to
why would they target Patriots ?
NAU
geo political actions in the middle east
WAR





[edit on 30-7-2008 by solo1]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by solo1]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
They were probably built with demolition in mind. since Rockefeller owned them. anything is possible. but sure seems like it just needed final wiring and
booommm...



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It's 100% obvious that the buildings were demolished

and there is no way they could have properly planted the charges after the attack.

The obvious and almost certain awnser is that the building was rigged to blow...

For whatever reason, the govt feels we need to be lied to about this.. perhaps afraid people will not want to work in a place that's rigged.


Somethings just aren't complicated... ask yourself, if you were Governor of NY or Mayor of NYC and an Engineer came to you and explained... that if the buildings fell sideways the death toll in the event of an "event" would be catastrophic that the two buildings if both fell in different directions could take out half of lower manhattan as debris chunks shot at the speed of a bullet train up broadway etc, etc...

and your told that charges could be put in place so that in that event you could minimize the loss of life, reduce the death toll by 10's of Thousands maybe 100's of thousands of people and Billions and Billions of Damage and Billions more as the rest of lower manhattan would be unusable including the Entire subway system for years after

What would your decision be...place charges in those buildings or No?

Would you make it public knowledge?

and

Do you think that other giant buildings don't have a system in place to prevent them from taking out the rest of the surounding city in the event of an "event"

some things are just obvious...if you think NY state officials at the lowest level weren't advised on the potential for attack or catastrophy before buildings like this were even finished your being naive...



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   


1) In the weeks before 9/11 the towers were put into a blackout every night. Everything was shut off, including the security system, during those hours every night, anything could have happened and there would have been no security footage of it.


Not quite, you have a 36 hour period in which the power on three floors of ONE tower was shut off. I do not know where you got the goofy idea that the towers were put into a blackout every night. It just did not happen. No company in the towers is going to allow their power to be shut off every night.




2) A few days before 9/11 the bomb dogs were abruptly removed from the buildings and not allowed to go back in. Could one of the dogs had sniffed out a bomb, and they were removed so as not to raise suspicion with the workers in the towers?


Wrong again. For a period of time the PAPD had EXTRA dogs in the towers. On 9/11, the dogs normally assigned to the towers were on duty.




3) Who was in control of security at the twin towers, and who's contract just happen to end Sept 11,2001? Why that would be Marvin Bush, Pres. Bush's youngest brother.


Strike three...batter's out.....Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom, a company that did some security systems work at the Trade Center. However, he stepped down from the board in June 2000, several months before his brother was the GOP nominee for President. Securacom itself, was not in charge of WTC security. John O Neill was in charge of the security department.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Finally....someone who gets it.

not a 1 liner.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Well first of all, where would you hide the explosives? I know I gave a possible location earlier, but that was for possibly a couple of months, no more.

The place I gave as the possible place to hide the explosives and cables was where the telephone lines and other utility things were so they could be worked on when there was a breakdown, it would be difficult to hide explosives in any area including this one for over a period of years.

Also, wouldn't these explosives start to deteriorate and break down after a certain amount of time, becoming unstable and also possibly not even working once they deteriorate?

Also, if I were a government official giving permission for this to be put in place, just in case of a terrorist attack, I would be worried the explosives might go off on a few floors on their own, due to an electrical short, deterioration, for whatever reason, killing people.

Then the investigation that would follow by people outside of my control, might lead to their finding the whole building being wired and filled with explosives and then the permission for this being traced back to me. I know there are some pretty stupid people in the government, (affairs, corruption, bribes, etc.,), but I don't think anyone is that stupid.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Just one thing that bothers me about this, why bring down a tower LESS THAN 1 HOUR LATER after it was hit. Wouldn't you wait until most were out.
OR is that the biggest error of the day, whoever is in control of the operation tells the controller blow the first building that was hit. And he accidently does the second building that was hit.

Imagine the reaction, "NOT THAT ONE YOU **** **** *****"!!!!!

Controller "Oooopppppsss"

To me that is one of the biggest glaring questions, that building burned for less than hour, most Americans think the first building hit came down first beacuse it burned the longest. Wrong!



[edit on 31-7-2008 by Blue_Jay33]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join