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.

 

WTC Impact Zones Were Sabotaged Theory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
So I can't help but pay attention to the no plane noise and what not going about for sometime and one of the arguments I thought stood out was the 'planes can't enter buildings' scenario.

So, why do we need holo planes or TV fakery when we can have good old fashion sabotage to aid that notion?

Well consider it's probably easier, cheaper and more realistic to start with. I have been examining the impact zones for the WTC and I have come to the conclusion if there is anything odd its most likely these zones were sabotaged in the areas the planes went in. This would also explain the noises heard in the weeks leading up to 9/11 like the heavy equipment being moved and dropped and the building vibrations. Also the concrete dust appearing in the offices? Drilling and small scale blasting perhaps? You can see there are square area like cut outs in the building. Yes its related to the framework layout but of course it would be. They probably loosed up the joints and what not.



Now if your going to go for the controlled demolition type explosive theory you probably going to conclude that the operatives indeed knew the planes were part of the plan and to be expected as a primary explanation or whatever. If your going to rig the WTC buildings, I am sure sabotaging a few floors to let a plane in wouldn't be much trouble.


Notice the square areas that have whole beams literally missing. They must of vacated the office spaces and sabotaged several floors in a diagonal fashion. Or perhaps rented them out and worked them. How long and when that all took place is debatable.

What more you can see how much room the plane had to squeeze into the square areas - not much at all, but they do have a little bit of compensation. This would mean the plane had to hit almost precisely the right spot. If these zones were sabotaged deliberately it would mean these were guided electronically to their targets, or the hijackers just followed some kind of flight path in. That's my opinion anyway.


Check the external link here for the full screen version:

Sabotaged. Forget the top diagram in this second link, the bottom one says it all. Look at the three beams all the same length, whats going on there? I think perhaps they left a few parts in but removed about 70/80% of the beams where the plane went in before it happened. You can even see a piece of the outer wall with two holes in the top of it, like the connections have been taken out and it just dropped off. I expect they were pretty careful as to make it look unaffected from the outside. Hell its even like half the floor has disappeared.

Well that's just my take on it for now, what do you guys think? I don't really see the no planer discussing that idea much and i think its a realistic counter explanation don't you think?




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
A couple of things don't fit that idea though

No sign of explosions to create the 'planesized' hole and remember these explosives would need to be on the outside of the building for the columns to be forced inward as they obviously are. Note the aluminium outer cladding is also cut from the outside in so any such explosive charges couldn't have been mounted under them. 'Implosives' are yet to be seen (maybe once we can make portable black holes things will be different)

Consider the vaguaries of flight and the confused nature of air currents among so many tall buildings which could almost certainly make the planes miss the proposed target zone or hit with the wrong attitude. The jig would up then - plane hits building and a hole appears several floors above or below with millions watching



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I did not say it had to be explosives. Perhaps they just cut the real steel out with powered tools sometime in the weeks before, somehow leaving the aluminium shell in place.

Perhaps the 'window cleaners' could help out on that whilst working with guys inside the room to stop piece falling down or what not.

They could even go on to replacing the steel columns with a temporary substitute (like soft cheap plaster or something) then cover it over and return the office back to normal so they could make the room look untouched in case anyone came snooping.

They may of even painted it up red and roughly molded it or cut it out to made it look like steel.

All of which is not impossible and I would consider a more realistic option than TV fakery or holoplanes.


[edit on 20-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I sure think the towers were helped to fall, but IMHO this is too far. You have to remember that the aircraft were doing 500+ kts. The KE is phenomenal! It hit the building with the following approximate energy:

KE = 0.5 x mass x (velocity ^ 2)

I'm guessing the aircraft weight was around 250,000 lbs. That is ~113,636 kg (113 tons).

500 kts = 257 m/s

KE = 0.5 x 113,636 x (257 ^ 2) = 3,752,772,082 J of energy.

...or approximately 1/12th of the power of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

I hope that puts it into context.


[edit on 20-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
^How fast and how much energy the planes hit the buildings with is irrelevant.
The planes impacts did not cause the collapses.

Even if the planes had severed even all the central columns it alone would not cause thousands of tones of steel to globally collapse with no resistance. At worst we would see what WTC2 started to do, and that's the top would topple and fall off the side to the street. Thing is something else took place to remove that resistance, and it's not fire because the section that should have created mass resistance was not on fire. So it's reasonable to believe those columns were still structurally sound, and could still hold the weight they were designed to, and had since their construction..

Then take into account the plane that hit WTC2 didn't even hit at the correct angle to even hit the central columns, so how is the collapse 'due to damaged central columns' work in this case? Different damage to WTC1 yet we see the exact same collapse result? And you see nothing wrong here? Incredible!

[edit on 20/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I hope this comes out right.

I really don't see a problem with the plane "holes". Here's what I mean.



If you look past the left of the engine hole, the steel columns aren't severed. They are damaged, but not severed.

No offense, but my professional opinion is that it could have happened that way. I'm not saying your theory is baseless, just that I, personally, can see it happening.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Perhaps that bit wasn't sabotaged and the plane was slightly off to the left or slightly wrong angle. He is a hint, perhaps the isolated smoking area above it was where the wing was supposed to hit? Anyway, look at the whole thing, click on the image and download it then put it into an image editor and zoom in, have a good look around at the points I have marked with that idea of sabotage in mind. I have uploaded a new version of this image and brightened it up a bit to see in those dark areas and tried to balance out the contrast a bit. You won't see the section to the right unless you download it.



I will go over the points later this weekend I don't have time right now but you maybe able to convince me otherwise before then.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Reply to Insolubrious.

That is interesting. Like I said, I wasn't knocking down your theory, just that I could see it happenening that way.

My boss said something that struck me today. While in conversation, I overheard him say to my co-worker that Rockefeller was known to underbid (that's how he made his money) in NYC.

Now, we know that the Rockefellers had a hand in the WTC.

Could it be that the towers were built sub-par? Could that be the conspiracy all along?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Could it be that the towers were built sub-par? Could that be the conspiracy all along?


You know that got me thinking I had heard this before (they used cheap and dodgy materials to build the towers) and that was actually my first thought on 9/11 when I watched the towers collapsed. It was like, ghee thoughts buildings must of been made out of plasterboard or something! No wonder it collapsed in a big ball of powder, what's all the fuss about? What did you expect? America should be ashamed that it collapsed! It was almost embarrassing, like what do you expect when you build these things out of plasterboard and cheap synthetics!

But I certainly did not realise they were supposed to have steel outer walls and steel core, and I also did not realise how damn huge these things were! On TV you don't really get much idea of the scale, especially with the Manhattan skyline and neighbouring large structures. I never realised these were two of the largest buildings in the world! I was shocked. I just assumed they were a bunch of very cheap concrete and plasterboard office blocks or something.

I think that's what really got me mad about this whole thing when I began to learn more about the size and structure of these buildings (or alleged structure) the huge amounts of steel contained in the cores and outer walls then knowing how much work and how long demolition takes and what would be involved is almost incomprehensible. Demolition record breaking literally. The towers were steel giants, two of the biggest on Earth!

Anyway getting back to the point think about this. Up to about the 80th floor it was all moderate quality steel but the last 30 floors, since they were on top and not having to support the additional load could be lighter weight materials, cheaper and synthetic. Almost like the top 30 stories were like a separate Las Vegas style building with the real strong steel 80 stories below carrying all the load.

Also when you watch the collapse, its like the top 30 floors drop into the 80th floor than the rest comes down. I brought this point up before when I noticed this but never thought the materials could also be different, its almost like the top 30 floors were a separate demolition of a different building. If you took those top 30 floors down to ground level and ignore the rest it would of looked like an implosion from the bottom, if you get me. Just like WTC7. That was just over 40 floors tho.


So basically what I am saying is it looks to me like they took out the top 30 floors like a separate building as if it were at ground level - then imploded the rest, sort of like a double demolition. Perhaps this would also explain the tipping phenomena on the south tower collapse and how it seemed to just vanish, because all the materials were so much lighter and weaker and were indeed something other than steel, it would also explain how the plane could enter the building so easily and why I think that perhaps just the impact zones were sabotaged when infact it was everything above floor 80 was cheap synthetic materials or substitutions.

Still it was reported they found tiny specks of steel in the dust clouds and that can't really be ignored, that's basically admitting that even the steel was reduced to powder. I think that points heavily at the usage of a WMD (and I am not talking about a boeing or jet fuel).

Well it something to think about, and it's more realistic than holoplanes! Perhaps worth investigating further too.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I am merely referencing a photo of how the external load bearers were placed on the towers. They were not tubes stacked one on top of the other. They were staggered as evidenced in the photo. That is what gave the twin towers exceptional primary lateral load bearing support, including successful load shifting, and stability, under extreme adverse condtions, including the rare chance a Boeing 707 would impact with either tower:

wmdatthewtc.com...

wrhstore.com...

Hopefully, it gives a better conception of how part of the towers were actually constructed.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I am interested in what people, who thought the wings went through construction steel, explain how when they hit concrete, as in the pentagoon, they hardly left a mark and disappeared into nothing?

Concrete, steel? Which would most likely have withstood the impact? Something doesn't add up here imo...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I asked myself the same questions concerning shoddy materials. Then I researched the buildings for adversity the buildings would face. This is what I found:

1. Daily heavy gravitational load, particularly with the antenna on WTC 1
2. Daily excess lateral load
3. Severe 1975 fire at the lower above ground level
4. 1993 bombing at the sub-level

I had to conclude shoddy materials were not an issue. The date, of construction, was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. People, directly involved, particularly the construction workers, tended to be more ethical and safety conscious. Their lives were at daily stake working on those buildings. If others disagree, I fully understand.

1993 bombing and condition at the sub-level of WTC 1:

www.nycop.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


I had to conclude shoddy materials were not an issue. T
l


if you read my post once again you over looked the point i was making that the 'shoddy materials' would only of been on the top 30 floors or so. Perhaps just the outer walls too, as the antenna was apparently sitting on the core. Obviously fires and bombings that you mention took place way below the floors in question so that's irrelevant to the point I was making.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

if you read my post once again you over looked the point i was making that the 'shoddy materials' would only of been on the top 30 floors or so. Perhaps just the outer walls too, as the antenna was apparently sitting on the core. Obviously fires and bombings that you mention took place way below the floors in question so that's irrelevant to the point I was making.


Human beings were still constructing those buildings on the last 30 floors. They were not as inclined, in those days, to take the money and forget their own safety, as well as the safety of others using those buildings. After all, they might one day be using those buildings, for one reason or another, themselves and their families and friends.

It did not cost David Rockefeller a dime for those buildings. He did not own the buildings or the land. His bank did the initial start-up financing. The taxpayers and public works bond holders paid the bill on the WTC construction. When offices were empty, as they often and plentifully were throughout the time period of initial opening through 9/11/2001, the taxpayers paid the net losses on that as well. Or they sold more bonds to increase the income to cover any losses on the entire complex.

The New York Port Authority, a state bureaucrat government body, held the land and buildings in trust for taxpayers and public works bond holders.

David Rockefeller was not in charge of the construction. The NYPA was. They hired the contractor, and the contractor hired the sub-contracted trades. They all answered directly to the NYPA, not David Rockefeller. The NYPA answered directly to David Rockefeller through his representatives or him.

The exception to the balance of the WTC complex was WTC 7. Larry Silverstein controlled that. The NYPA owned the land. They also owned the building, but Silverstein was allowed to control WTC 7 from start to finish, and got an exceptionally sweet deal doing it. The taxpayers footed the high cost bill on that as well.

Silverstein eventually owned WTC but not the land on which it set. He was that close to David Rockefeller that laws could be broken for Silverstein to gain and maintain control. WTC 7 was not constructed until years later after the initial opening of the balance of the WTC complex. He did not hire the same contractor as the NYPA for the balance of the WTC complex.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I was just watching this video and it reminded me of the point I was trying to make with this thread. It's a no-planer type video that attempts to convince us the planes were tv fakery (which i still don't buy) but the issue of planes not being able to penetrate the steel wall of the building is very compelling. This video sort of explains what I am getting at:



It's worth watching just to consider the point that Jeff King raises.

I believe the no-planers have a very good point with this issue of aluminum plane verses steel wall, probably their best point that the walls should of offered more resistance. But why is their answer holoplanes and tv fakery? Is it harder to conceive that the impact zones were sabotaged? Having seen countless no planer type conspiracy videos and websites I still haven't seen any real hard and solid evidence to suggest actual tv fakery (just odd camera shots that don't match because of various different lens settings and disappearing wings that could be down to video compression), but what i do see is some good evidence toward a sabotaged impact zones type of theory carried out by the 'plumbers' to allow the planes to enter the buildings.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Google Video Link


Very compelling no planes vid.

Morgan Reynolds puts up a great case for no planes. However he doesn't once mention the possibly of sabotaged floors - a couple of floors were hollowed out to allow the planes to enter. This would account for everything he talks about, so I would ask the 9/11 truth movement to push and research this idea a little harder.

Morgan points out the resistance begins once the plane is inside, well rightly so according to the hollowed out floors idea, no resistance from the outer wall because the wall was fake but once inside the plane meets the core and is obliterated from there. Makes much more sense, fake plane or fake wall. I think its obvious personally and I don't see why no one is discussing this possibility. Perhaps the no planes theory is just more exciting.




top topics



 
0

log in

join