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.

 

The WTC was Pre-Rigged with Explosives as a Safety Precaution

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Touché!

I just thought the OP had some concrete evidence. (No pun intended)




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Or, do you have other examples of buildings which have been prewired with explosives for "safety"? Surely if this was such a good idea, other buildings have followed suit? Or was the WTC the prototype in efficient safe demolition design?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The perps would love for the common man to swallow this nonsense. To imagine that tenants and the public would be allowed to occupy a building rigged with explosives is ridiculous. There is NO WAY that a building could be used while explosives were anywhere in the place at all. It violates ALL safety and Code requirements.

No insurance carrier would ever indemnify a building owner if there were explosives present; the risk of a premature explosion or accident is so high that it is unthinkable to imagine such a scenario.

No, the buildings were NOT engineered with demolition in mind. Architects know any building has a lifespan but they do plan buildings with the placement of explosives for later removal...thats silly.

It was no big deal for the perps, the insiders from our own intel, the Neocon boys, and the Mossad agents, to place the small nukes used to pulverize the Towers. In the case of Bldg. 7, the plans went awry and they could not drop it at the same time as the Towers and 6, etc...so they had to go back in and rig it again...at 5:20 they finished and gave a countdown, and blew out ALL the massive support beams at the bottom levels, across the entire span, so it could fall neatly into its footprint.

Building 7 was a red herring, an obvious screw up, and only the dumbed down Fox news brain dead American public could swallow the outrageous nonsense that the official story claims and not retch.

ANY excuse will do for those who desperately need to believe in the official fairy tale, as they simply cannot allow such a horrendous reality to be accepted as fact.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Hey it makes sense to me.


Really - that makes sense to you? In the event that the building is the subject of a terrorist attack, lets wire the thing up with exlposives - that's the safest course? Wow.

Just for fun - who would have done this "wiring"? You really think anybody would wire an occupied buillding with explosives? And I can go on and on and on. Please think about this a little bit.


So you only argument is that people are "Smarter" than this? Or "Nicer"?

And that it feels bad to you?

It's called insurance. Do you have any idea how much insurance $ those buildings were worth?

It's clear they rigged it (if indeed true) to prevent OTHER buildings nearby from being obliterated by the collapse in case one occurred.

Why would they NOT rig it with explosives? You think humans would just let 2 buildings risk destroying 150 other skyscrapers? Not a chance in hell.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Yes i've speculated about this before but it has taken too long for them to come forwards with the truth and flight 93 may had been shoot down but that still leaves the Pentagon.

No two ways the towers did not fall the way physics would dictate

Do we have a source or is it just another theory being flown around to divide the truth movement by the zionists again.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
But if they were rigged with explosives to prevent them from falling on other buildings in a SHTF situation, why are not all skyscapers built this way? There are plenty of very tall, high profile buildings in this country that are potential terrorist targets, or could be structually compromised by earthquake, fire, etc.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by eeyipes]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Since murderers couldn't disprove controlled demolition for the last 9 years now they want people to believe the buildings were pre rigged for everyone's "safety"....



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
No, the buildings were NOT engineered with demolition in mind. Architects know any building has a lifespan but they do plan buildings with the placement of explosives for later removal...thats silly.

WTC 1 & 2 had to be brought down.
They were already in non-compliance
with fire codes and were being fined
by the city.
Not even to mention the use of Asbestos
in construction which is also later to be determined
hazardous to health. There were numerous
law suits from tenants who were getting sick
from the asbestos.
There was also funded studies done on how best
to fix the towers and they found the cost to fix
all these problems far exceeded the value of
the property.
Under those circumstances, why not rig the building???
Remember, it's all about money to these people.

Look at the gulf spill, isn't it about money
there too???



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich

It was no big deal for the perps, the insiders from our own intel, the Neocon boys, and the Mossad agents, to place the small nukes used to pulverize the Towers.


So using conventional explosives preplaced like in the OP is too "far fetched" to make sense.

BUT, the use of nukes by Mossad makes perfect sense??

You have got to be kidding me lol.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
Since murderers couldn't disprove controlled demolition for the last 9 years now they want people to believe the buildings were pre rigged for everyone's "safety"....

it's a plausible explanation.
It's used every day in medicine.

A person gets cut real bad
and could bleed to death.
A tourniquet is applied to
stop the bleeding. You lose
an arm, but you save your life.

Rigging the buildings to bring them
straight down, could in fact save many
thousands more lives in the adjacent
buildings who were occupied IF those
buildings had of fallen sideways.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So using conventional explosives preplaced like in the OP is too "far fetched" to make sense.

Is it ???

It was done in the movie

"Enemy of the State"

when Brill's hideout (warehouse)
was being invaded by the NSA he had
it pre-rigged to explode.

It's used everyday in military tactics.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


"It's called insurance. Do you have any idea how much insurance $ those buildings were worth?"

Yes i do and it's peanuts

Did you know that the day before the building fell over that congress was told that a whopping $2.2tr had gone missing ?

911research.wtc7.net...

Thats would pay for about 500 ground zeros when i went to school and silversteen was able to turn a few million $ deposit on the WTC into a $4bn payout and can anyone where his roots are ?

Funney how all the paths reach iserail don't you think.

boondock-saint

I know myself that most of what you say is true about the condition of the towers but do lets see the links incase a none beleiver happens to pass by and is realy looking for the truth.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by LieBuster]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eeyipes
But if they were rigged with explosives to prevent them from falling on other buildings in a SHTF situation, why are not all skyscapers built this way? There are plenty of very tall, high profile buildings in this country that are potential terrorist targets, or could be structually compromised by earthquake, fire, etc.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by eeyipes]


Because, according to the 'story', the explosives were placed into the WTC complex AFTER the first terrorist attack happened with the car bombs in the parking garage basement.

It was a known high profile terrorist target.

This was *allegedly* a precaution just in case their follow up attempts finally succeeded.

So it is a special case scenario with special circumstance.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If this is the case, why haven't they stated this from the outset?
It sounds much better to say so rather than make themselves look like they're lying for 9 years.
No sources, no evidence, no brainer, a load of ****



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Well they should have used this "plausible explanation" 9 years ago?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I have to call b*llsh*t, I am in no doubt that the buildings where demolished however if say they put the explosives in after the 1993 attack then it is very close to the max shelf life of the most commonly suspected explosive, thermite which is 10 years. Also you have the detonation cord which has a max shelf life on 5 years; these timescales are noted in all of the textbooks in good conditions.
I don’t believe that the explosives lay dormant for several years as there would be no guarantee that they would have worked and would have definitely not fired in the order they were pre-programmed to do.
I believe the buildings where rigged within a few weeks of the attacks to guarantee the results that they got, the whole world saw what happened however only a small percentage of the people questioned the official story. I maybe wrong but is more likely that the Government relying on mouldy outdated explosives



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by richierich
No, the buildings were NOT engineered with demolition in mind. Architects know any building has a lifespan but they do plan buildings with the placement of explosives for later removal...thats silly.

WTC 1 & 2 had to be brought down.
They were already in non-compliance
with fire codes and were being fined
by the city.
Not even to mention the use of Asbestos
in construction which is also later to be determined
hazardous to health. There were numerous
law suits from tenants who were getting sick
from the asbestos.
There was also funded studies done on how best
to fix the towers and they found the cost to fix
all these problems far exceeded the value of
the property.

I'd ask for a source, but I know it would be rubbish anyway.

Only the lower 40-odd floors of Tower 1 had asbestos in it, since the use of asbestos was banned in New York during the contruction of the towers (www.nytimes.com...).

And then you have PANYNJ, who sued their insurers to cover the cost of asbestos cleanup in ALL of their buildings, which they themselves estimated to have a pricetag of $600 million.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Oh, they did it in a movie?

Oh right, well it's totally plausible then.

If you ever want to prove Judy Wood's DEW you could point us towards Star Wars, maybe.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Only the lower 40-odd floors of Tower 1 had asbestos in it, since the use of asbestos was banned in New York during the contruction of the towers (www.nytimes.com...).


Sorry and thanks for putting us truthers right but we seem to have a bit of a problom ????????????????????????????????

You see the offical story said that the asbestos was blown from the steelwork during the impact of the planes and this allowed the steel to become exposed to the flames.

Can we have our cake and eat it.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Maybe it wasn't pre rigged. Maybe things were planted that day amongst the chaos.


...Anyway, at this point three guys started running towards me. One guy believe it or not -- it may sound weird, but to me an Arabic-looking guy, American though. And the twho guys that were chasing were yelling, "Stop, stop, FBI, FBI." One guy was a tall white guy. He had a long-sleeved white shirt and tie on. Anyway, I watched them chase this fellow toward me. Just as the guy was passing to my right maybe about 12 feet away, the so-called FBI guys, they get a hold of the guy, threw him on the floor and put cuffs on him. The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder...



...Something I noticed from when I was standing in front of the Embassy Suites at the time, I saw that the US Secret Service were bringing somebody, and Arab man in a suit, covered in soot, walking away in handcuffs. I remember that distinctly, because the guy looked right in my eyes...



...We got to the lobby, and we saw things. We saw an arrest being made of some Arab-looking type guy. I think he had a blue uniform type World Trade Center type maintenance type person. It was my impression. It didn't seem important to me. It seemed like he was being arrested by a Port Authority type policeman. That's my impression. I remember them putting cuffs on him, and I remember one of the firemen saying, "Look, they're arresting the guy," and I said, "Never mind that. Never mind that."...


I'm not sold on the idea of controlled demolition. But I am curious about comments like these. As far as I know theres been no public mention of any arrests made during the chaos. So were these guys arrested "in the heat of the moment" because they were "arab looking", or had they done something to arouse suspiscion?




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join