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.

 

9/11 conspiracy split - Explosives built into towers or explosives added later?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
So here is a question to those of you that believe that the towers were demolished. Were the towers constructed with explosives built into them or were the explosives added at a later date?

I am seeing a little more acceptance from people who are acknowledging that 9/11 was an occultic event planned decades in advance.

I think most people are not willing or able to accept that and may wish to go with a more recent date for explosive addition.

What are your thoughts about when explosives were added to the towers?


[edit on 1-6-2009 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I always thought they were added in the weeks or week leading up to it.
I don't post in this forum and am far from being an expert on this subject.
All the talk of lots of dust made me think they drilled the holes and planted them in the weeks or week leading up to it.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
ive allways belived they where added after the first hit in the 90´ and by non other the Giuliani

and this info came from non other then a NY cab driver exactly half year before 9/11,

he mentioned something about bombs in the building after the first hit and why they where put there and by whom , but what ill never forget is what he said when we stood at the base of one of the towers.

this will be the last time you see the towers so enjoy it ,

at the time didnt think much of it continued to take pictures and viewing the basic sites at the time, but half a year later i get a phone call to put on the tv and lo and behold there we have one of the towers on fire then the plane flying into the second tower then one by one collapsing ,

it was chills up down the spine , a cab driver !!!! , who ever you where cabbie , you where ahead of your time,

if it wherent for that being told then , today i could care less about the whole incident , but i cant.

respect cabbie



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I'm seem to recall a quick interview, with one of the caretakers. When asked, he replied that several workers were complaining, about "large" amounts of dust close to airwents. He also said that "workcrews" were around during week-ends. Sometimes he would peek into these work areas, but got the feeling that he was snooping around.

I also heard that the normal 24-7 security, had been pulled. Normaly there would be bomb sniffing dogs, but they were pulled completely, again weeks before the attack. The guard duties were also limited, and new guards were put in place.

Peace



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
What say the government shills?

NO explosives present?

The question is redundant.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Would be great if a WTC contractor came forward and did the right thing to set the record straight.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Added during that big "Elevator" maintenance they did before the event.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I agree with most of the previous posters who think that the explosives were added at some point prior to 9/11 but not when the building was being built.

Most people don't realize that demolition using planted explosives was in it's infancy at the time that the WTC was being built. This has been discussed in detail in another thread, which I can't remember the title of. (It's morning here, just had my first cuppa' joe.)

There was another large building being demolished in NYC at the time the WTC was going up and it was being taken down in the traditional manner for the period, brick by brick and with cranes etc.

They wouldn't have had the expertise at the time to do what was necessary for an explosive demo of the building. They could have blown it sky high yes, but it wouldn't have been the precision job we saw on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
They at least considered how the building would come down when it was being constructed. This is from a thread started by BillyBob, i just met one of the original architects of the WTC:


one day, a man from the bin laden company came and asked him what the best places to place demolition charges in the building were.
he said to the bin laden man, 'it's a piece of paper, there is no building!'(it wasn't up yet), and was shocked by the question. however, he thought it over, and pointed, 'here, and here, and over here', and then said the man went on and questioned the other designers with the same question.
apparently, it was becoming COMMON PRACTICE at the time to pre-plan the building's demolition. in las vegas, for example, moving a building over a few INCHES could mean millions more in revenue, so(i'm not sure which of the next two options he meant by this...) they planned to take them down easily with either pre-planned explosives, or at least pre-planned positions for explosives.

now, i want to make it clear that this man is not a 'conspiracy theorist'. he believes the towers fell the way they did because THEY WERE DESIGNED TO fall that way. telelscope(columns) and accordion(x-braces) down. basically, he says, that's exactly what happened. AND, he says, the bin ladens knew EXACTLY how to do it, because THEY BUILT IT and PLANNED THE DEMOLITION AT INCEPTION.


I can only quote his post, but he's still an active member so I'm sure he can talk more about it himself.


I started getting suspicious myself that they were built with the intention to demolish them at some point, though I think a lot of the details were left unfilled so that advances in technology, convenient opportunities, etc. could be taken advantage of for greatest effect. The Rockefellers were behind the commission and construction of these buildings, and the Rockefellers are none other than a sell-out family that has become as successful as they have because they have played it up to the Rothschilds out of Europe. JD Rockefeller's oil empire turned out to have the majority of its stocked owned by Rothschilds, and JD only about 20% though he was believed to have been the richest man in the US at the time. All the gold supposedly in Fort Knox has the name "Rothschild" stamped on it, etc. These families are among the most obscenely wealthy and powerful of any publicly visible families, and are executive hands of imposing whatever order or chaos upon the world.


In the 1980's the Port Authority started doing more digging into the buildings' weaknesses:


The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).


www.historycommons.org...

ATS thread: Port Authority's OSP Unit assesses WTC Towers for attack, 1984

1984, the year of this study, was just a year after WTC7's construction was undertaken in 1983. WTC7 was constructed across the street from the rest of the complex and with a bird's eye view of it. And would later have a bunker installed, and on Sept. 10 2001 FEMA arrived there (a day before 9/11, notice) for a bio-terror exercise they said they had scheduled for Sept. 12th. They used WTC7, along with OEM and Giuliani's office, for a command post on 9/11 and kept in contact with police and firefighters from there. For what it's worth.

A personal opinion of mine is that relatively new technology, unconventional, very miniaturized pure fusion bombs or something similar were used, perhaps 2 or 3 of them but not very many, to destroy the core structure. In theory, should these devices exist (of course they don't officially) they could produce approaching 100% efficiency in turning radioactive material into energy. The bombs we dropped on Japan, for example, were very crude and only converted less than 1% of the fissile material (they were fission bombs) into energy, which were their respective explosions. The rest of the radioactive material was distributed over the land which caused residual radioactivity. So a much more efficient and pure fusion bomb would not make use of fission, not leave very much radiation at all (and what it would leave would be short-lived), could theoretically be of any yield desired (even only a few grams or so of radioactive material, as opposed to 60 kg for example in one of the Japan bombs), and would simply vaporize the local steel in extremely intense heat and energy within a spherical radius, etc. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence of such a thing happened that I could go into if anyone is genuinely interested, but of course no pictures of the bomb in place or anything like that.


In the mid 1990s, after the first WTC bombing, and before 9/11, when under the Securacom/Stratesec security contract, I would imagine a lot of the "meat" of what was used was brought in and put on the columns themselves. This could have been a eutectic compound or other form of incendiary or explosive mixture or slurry applied directly to the columns and trusses as though it were fireproofing (and the people installing it and permits, etc. could even say and think as much, that it was just fireproofing being installed). Or paint, like the "paint chips" Jones et al have analyzed in their most recent study. Then probably any last minute tune-ups, installations, preparations, etc. within the final weeks and months before they were destroyed. In the final days before 9/11, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the building (this was reported in the media) and certain elevators were closed off for "servicing" which had caused some inconvenience.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   


An April 2009 report in the Open Chemical Physics Journal by a Danish chemist and American physicist said that nanotechnolgy-produced thermite was found in dust samples at the WTC site after the 9-11 attacks. Linda spoke with Prof. David Harrit of the Univ. of Copenhagen who told her that Livermore Lab was producing such material for military purposes and "there is no doubt that the explosions of the future will be nanothermitic."



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join