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 explosives placed in WTC towers when they were built ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I know this was found on Jeff Rense's site and some members of ATS have a problem with him, but all I am asking is for everyone to consider the information in this article.

"We had a team of consultants hired by Otis Elevator to supervise and inspect all aspects of those commutators we produced for those motors. That were being made for the largest ever Twin Towers going up in Asia ...

One day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor ... He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.


Charges Placed In WTC Towers When Built?

Is it possible that explosives were also built into the WTC towers, and that they were deliberately detonated? After all, they went down just as described by the engineer in the article.

The one question I have about this is about the explosives. As mentioned by one respondant in the article, explosives do degrade. When the towers were built, did explosives exist that could still be viable now ? Could the twin towers have been taken down in the way Parish says ?




posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Interesting, and it supplies a different bend on the event.

I wonder if there is an explosive that could be contained so it wouldnt degrade, to last the building to it's expected end-of-life.

It occurs to me that there may be requirements to building such a structure.

Such as a nuclear plant or other facility that would require a disposal issue. Contingency plan for the 'final expenses' of a project.

Even purchacing a Refrigerator or a tire has a built-in 'disposal' fee when you finalize the purchase.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
That article deserves the Nobel bullcrap award.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I also read about charges being set in the elevator shafts. I think it was at



Something about how the towers were built to withstand the impact of jets, and how people saw flashes of light on certain floors just before the towers collapsed.

Not saying I believe them.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
VERY interesting. I don't think that when the WTC was built they envisioned terrorism as a reason but maybe they were thinking about an earthquake or something else. I think that it's viable. Can you imagine the devastation if the towers didn't fall straight down.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Right...they don't go in after and set the charges in key places, they do it during construction. Set the detonators and then leave them for 100+ years. Most buildings will be around that long in this day and age. And that makes more sense than inproving the fire systems so that a fire does not burn hot enough to weaken the support of the floor above.

I would challenge him to actually "prove" such a statement.


Imagine the insurance liability? No, this would never be secret....

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Exactly, image the dude at the water cooler when a errant RF signal detonates the thing..
if he survived he'd OWN the towers...



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberpilot
Exactly, image the dude at the water cooler when a errant RF signal detonates the thing..
if he survived he'd OWN the towers...



LOL! Or the guy changing channels in the apartment down the street and BOOM!



The article is funny and seems jaded toward the author's pre-belief of the situation. I guess actually getting evidence about the truth is just too messy.

So, bam-bam-bam he constructs a theory, which at the end, he states "It (blueprints) may show, in detail, what I have said about them."

The word "may" being his opt-out clause.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Lets not forget about the fact that all explosives are inherently unstable, that is why they are explosives, right?

As explosive age they have a tendency to become more unstable, as well as corrosive (some will at least).

Another made up story posted on Rense (Does this guy define the word media whore or what?)

Besides, the controlled demo guys never have much trouble accessing the structural members they need to get at when they implode buildings.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
they wouldn't have to put the explosives there and leave them. they could just design the proper placements and design holes within which to place the explosives when the time is right.
i don't believe it, but i hate to see good ideas ridiculed without considering all the possibilities. it would be a good idea for an engineer to design into the building.
howard roark, ....blowing up buildings. HAHA!



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
there were no explosives in the WTC. there were no secondary explosions like in a regular controlled demo to indicate there were no explosives in the building. it was all issac newton (gravity) the supports were weak from the intence heat of burning jet fule, and then gravity took over. notice how the terrorist smashed the planes into the mid sections of the buildings. most likely there intent was to knock over the buildings. contuct experiments of heat weakend steel trying to hold up half a skyscraper.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
As someone involved in highrise construction for many years on buildings up through 75 stories I can vouch for the fact that not one extra slim dime will be spent at time of construction that is not necessary, not much thought is given after 10 years by original developers or each subsequent owner once investment is recouped.

Construction workers would not work on finishing any building rigged the way thats implied and they would know if something like that was tried.

The towers came down the way they did because the inner core and the outer structural exoskeleton formed a tube like structure. The floor beams being the weak point at their attachment to the core and exterior. The extreme weight of collapsed areas on the floor below along with heat of fire only needed to collapse one or two more floors to cause the domino effect as witnessed. The core and exoskeleton were respectively pulverized, forced outwards as debris quikly built up in collapse. I am suprised that they stood as long as they did after impact.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Phoenix]

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So you are saying that they were willing to take a chance on either of the towers not just falling over instead of going staight down? Think of the damage if one just decided to go south. How many building, and people, would have been lost?



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I'll be willing to bet that, in the planning stages the sentence "well when it falls over.." never was mentioned.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberpilot
I'll be willing to bet that, in the planning stages the sentence "well when it falls over.." never was mentioned.


I can just see it now. The year, 1967. The place, a smoke filled conference room at Skidmore Owings and Merril, A bunch of guys in sitting around looking at blue prints wearing dark suits and narrow ties:

Port Authority: So how stable will your design be? Will they tip over like a couple of giant trees?

Architect: Well if you want, well put in automatic explosive detonating devices and hinges on the support columns so that, well, when it falls over the towers will automatically fold up . . .





posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

howard roark, ....blowing up buildings. HAHA!





Hey we are talking about the WTC, not Cortland.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
listen, the way they built these buildings, they had no choice but to come straight down.

They are built with Steel verticals (which are flexable), and concrete horizontals (which is like glass, strong but shatters).

If you have a pane of glass surounded by an aluminum frame, and you bent the frame, the glass would shatter and fall.

Being that concrete is 1) heavy as all hell, and 2) prone to shattering the when the steel verticals began to bend (negating the heat on the concrete which we all know cracks like our sidewalks) it broke and fall onto the one below, and so on and so on.

I couldn't bend far enough to fall very far to the side before it fell.

Just thought y'all could benifit from some structural engineer insight.



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
All i heard was rumours that fireffighters where saying that bombs where going off, and it looked like a controled explosion.

Wouldn't mind hearing these firefighters, but i bet the tapes have been taken away by the FBI/CIA.

Would be nice to see footage of the bombs going off.



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
tower seven.
seismic spikes.
no big chunks, just powder.
a cloud of debris that billowed out ten times as much as it should have if only from the force of collapse.
FEMA prior knowledge.
destroying and/or hiding the evidence(the steel).
the company 'controlled demolitions' hired for cleanup.
i could fill a page with this list.
yeah, it cascaded down, ....what a steaming load.

one of my faves is bush saying, "let us not tolerate any conspiracy theories". before the horse was even out of the gate. transparent as vaccuum.



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   


All i heard was rumours that fireffighters where saying that bombs where going off, and it looked like a controled explosion.


One of the buildings in the world trade center complex did have a small stock of weapons stored in it for use by one of the agencies in there. I'd really feel more comfortable not saying which one and leave that for folks to decide but I will tell you I'm not referring to either of the twin towers.

As for this "theory" (at a certain point one must put theory in quotes so as not to insult the word) I may not be involved in construction myself but I do have a good relationship with union construction workers particularly those who do high rise projects, including two 40+ story residential complexes within blocks of my office. Is it possible that the authors of such articles do not realize a few small issues? For example the precision with which things such as the towers need to be built? One could hardly state that heavy explosive devices were simply attached to the beams (in the early 70s no less!) and this did not interfere with any construction? Folks, this isn't lego or lincoln logs. You don't draw up plans to a 110 story structure and start taking liberties on the way up. Construction of high rise structures is an incredibly precise art, thank goodness. Additionally it would seem quite incredible that explosives planted and completely hidden by the 1973 completion date managed to remain idle yet completely functional until 2001. I really did not know that we had the ability to plant explosives (which by the way a few thousand laborers must have kept a secret all these years, right?) leave them in place for nearly 30 years, and set them off with what... a remote control or a precisely set 30 year timer?

I think we can all see when we look at this in a logical sense that this is VERY unlikely. I never call something false that I don't have firsthand knowledge of and since I was not a construction worker on that job I can't do that. But I think this story's truth is about equal to the one about how last week elvis married the girl with 3 legs who gave birth to a sheep that spoke fluent latin.

[Edited on 1-22-2004 by Djarums]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join