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
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).
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]