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: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Wow,,,, I just came across this post. So, let me get this straight, The WTC was "PRE-RIGGED" to do this?

I guess the squashes a number of previous theories - including the one that says, Bush did it?

This conspiracy has gone beyond "theory" into - I don't know what.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
"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."

Why would the insurers be obligated to cover the cost of the asbestos abatement, since this was a pre-existent condition dating back to the construction? Insurance carriers do not make billions by being so stupid as to provide coverage for pre-existent conditions.

Of course, the Port Authority may have had liability coverage which covered individuals who became ill from asbestos contamination, but this is a whole different type of coverage. And even then, the carrier would fight you if you have not taken steps to remedy the dangerous asbestos condition.

In conclusion, the owner of the WTC (The Port Authority of NY & NJ) was most probably on the hook for the cost of the asbestos abatement. Why pump at least $600 million into a couple of outdated dinosaurs when you can blow up the entire complex and get the carriers to foot the entire bill to replace the buildings? And not only did they foot the bill, the carriers provided a settlement amount well beyond the Towers actual market value. Pretty savvy business decision if you ask me.

It is not far fetched to believe that the insurance carriers were in on the entire scam, since they did not challenge coverage. They did not have experts examine the salvage for explosives (which they were the rightful owners of, since they payed for the demolished buildings) and they failed to hire coverage counsel to potentially deny coverage. Since there was more than enough evidence to deny coverage, the actions of the insurance carriers was suspect, to say the least.

Therefore, one can speculate that the insurers had previous knowledge of the events and gave the go ahead. Since the price of insurance policies increased after 9/11 (an excuse given by every insurance agent), it was the consumers who eventually ended up footing the bill.

Unfortunately, most people are too stupid to put the pieces together and understand how this operation was undertaken. In fact, it is these same ignorant idiots who are to blame for 9/11.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
id like to throw out a theory, just for the heck of it.

The towers were financial losers. Some thought them eye sores, called them the washer and dryer. They cost way more than they brought in each year. The owner hypothetically decides enough is enough, he wants them demolished, making way for a more profitable building. But you cant just do that. people would protest the destruction of a new york icon. Their would be 10,000 legal hurdles to get past, and most importantly, no one has ever demolished a building like that in the middle of the busiest downtown area in the world, disrupting other businesses etc.

The cost and time and legal hoops would be incredulous, if safe demolition were even possible. Yet what businessman in their right mind would keep the towers going just to lose millions each year.

Something had to be done. The solution...fake a terrorist attack.

It was merely a business decsion.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Engineering structures to be easily demolished with the aid of explosives does have a precedent.

Bridges built in Germany during the cold war had culverts inbuilt at strategic places, that could be quickly filled with explosive...should Ivan had decided to open his iron curtain. Just saying.

On another note, I have made a decent living out of blowing stuff up and trying to stop things blowing up.

To rig the towers conventionally would have been a huge undertaking. I'm not sure how they did it, but I believe someone did rig it using something that was quickly put in all the right places and letting gravity do the rest.

Tin hat on. I have no proof of this, but I think someone found a way to "shock" the steel vertically with some advanced form of jigery pokery. Tin hat off.

My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones on that terrible day.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
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.

I have no idea what "official story" you're quoting from, but as far as I'm aware, asbestos isn't the only fire-proofing.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam Vimes
Engineering structures to be easily demolished with the aid of explosives does have a precedent.

Bridges built in Germany during the cold war had culverts inbuilt at strategic places, that could be quickly filled with explosive...should Ivan had decided to open his iron curtain. Just saying.

I'd wager that there's a slight difference between blowing up a bridge and blowing up a 110 story building.

Not to mention, it'd make sense to blow up those bridges, given that the risk of the Soviets rolling across the border seemed very real at the time.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Geeze, if it was pre-wired for demolition for "safety" and avoidance of collateral damage, I'd say it was a pretty crappy job then.

Gee I dont think the Deutsche Bank Building was suppose to get destroyed. Or Fritterman Hall. Or WTC 3 - 6.
Or damage done to the Verizon Building, Post Office, 90 West Street, or the rest of the surrounding buildings?

But dont take my word for it:

www.fema.gov...

Yes we are to believe the WTC were brought down into their footprints. Sorry folks, but that simply is not true. The WTC were not demoed and they sure as hell did not fall into their footprints.

The ignorance! It BURNS!!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 




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.


I am sure when the FBI gave Yosef the bomb in 1993, that violated a few laws as well but that didn't stop the FBI now did it?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Information has come down the wire that the World Trade Center complex were pre-rigged and maintained with explosives. The plan was implemented shortly after the WTC bombing in 1993.



This is true. I, myself, have seen those documents, double-secret Eyes Only for the President that were smuggled out of the White House at great cost of life and great peril to many undercover sleeper agents who are truly loyal to this country and its freedom-loving patriots!

There is one other seldom-mentioned element of this nefarious plan that is another direct result of the 1993 bombing is that every car that enters the WTC parking deck is searched exhaustively and each vehicle is issued, if they do not already have one, a trunk-monkey as protection against terrorists driving a Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) into the building, ala 1993.

Some may find this hard to believe, but its the truth! A smoiking Gun !!!!!11!

I have seen those documents.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


You can say that this aint so but I am sorry to say that these explosives and systems that were worked in the towers were necessary to protect not only the lives, surrounding structures but the information contained within.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]


If this were the case it would have been all over the news shortly after the buildings fell or sometime after that. Why?

Because that would further the terrorist story and support of it. There might be a lot of upset and angry people but they would have been dealt with accordingly and I think a lot would have patriotically understood. Even if they didn't, it still would have been revealed years ago.

Your argument is false friend because if this were the case, this information would have not been hidden and recently disclosed because it could have been used in support of the "Terrorist" theory. They would have played that card when available.

I'm not saying they weren't rigged because they were, just not for safety reasons...

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Crossfate]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by hhcore
And IF it were true, who was at the controls? Who gave the go ahead?


I don't know.

Maybe it was the guy who said "Just Pull It"?

Just thinking out loud here....


Nevermind.....

2nd line

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Crossfate]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Crossfate
 


I believe the majority of people died in the collapse of the towers. You seriously think people would have understood? The terrorist kill 500, we blow the building and kill 1500.

Oh yeah, completely understandable.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Maybe some, maybe not. But then again how many support the foreign wars and sign up to be willingly and blindly turned into cannon fodder to fight the big bad terrorists for safety, security and freedom and in the name of freedom? Couldn't that card be played just as that in the approach of releasing such information?

Who knows really, but either way I think this info would have been released years ago if it were true as it would back the official terrorist story, not just recently which is why I call it BS.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Crossfate]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Crossfate]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


You'd be right to wager that. Like I said, I was just saying.


I don't believe the towers were pre-rigged. Like someone else pointed out, explosives have a shelf life. Det chord to messy. Radio controlled detonation too risky. Risk of discovery too great.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Crossfate
 


The government doesn't admit guys are spies for 50 years because it makes them look bad. You honestly think they would admit to killing 1500 of its own people?

I'm not saying I agree with the topic at hand, but I don't see them admitting it, were it true. If it were released, it would be in 2110 or something.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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.


Obviosly you have not been exposed to the evidence yet....because if you had you would not be so suprised..no kidding.

There are MANY points of evidence that make small nukes the BEST theory yet...from the obvious EMP effects, which cannot be attributed to anything else...DEW comes close but only EMP acts like we see in the anomalies presented.

Instant VAPORIZING of steel core members...even the NIST could not hide the vaporized steel and proof of it..high temps at ground zero for MONTHS, only possible by the reaction of unspent nuke fuel..they used dirty and water, the common way to deal with radioactive material..

TOTAL DUSTIFICATION of the concrete and people, etc...is a hallmark of the small nuke...the perps had charges that took the core out and pulverized the Towers top to bottom and ' regular' thermite and explosives were used to weaken corner supports, as proven already.

Car and trucks exploding and buring with NO source...no debris falling, no heat..and people right next to them..people injured by door handles blasting off of cars..ONLY EMP can explain this...DEW is not as discriminate and would affect mot just metal, as EMP does, but other things as well...things that were not affected.

MISSING major core beams..by some estimate over half of the core steel simply vanished...vaporized..gone. Only the heat from a nuke could cover such a vast area and supply enough heat to disintegrate beams. Remember the 50 TON press that was GONE from the sub-basement? The men that looked in there saw it was GONE, not damaged..but gone.

Small nukes are the ONLY logical way to explain these and other facts....so unless YOU can come up with a likley way to exaplin it all away, remember that he who laughs last laughs best!! I hope this helps with your education in this matter.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by Crossfate
 


The government doesn't admit guys are spies for 50 years because it makes them look bad. You honestly think they would admit to killing 1500 of its own people?

I'm not saying I agree with the topic at hand, but I don't see them admitting it, were it true. If it were released, it would be in 2110 or something.



I don't know..... lol

I just imagine in hopes of supporting their theory that it was a terrorist plot, they would recognize the potential of releasing that information and through their usual control tactics, use it for further support in fighting the war and the implementing that patriot act and such.

Maybe again they didn't feel they needed anymore support and would just leave out that information because of potential risks involved, if this information were verifiable that is.

Either way I don't know, just trying to keep my speculation, speculation. 9/11's a strong subject, apparently for me.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I am wiring my house tonight with controlled demolition explosives just in case.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Alex Jones claims that his sources tell him that 23 US cities are "pre-wired" with nukes for similar nefarious purposes.

He doesn't give a specific source, simply says that there are "hollywood insiders" "in the know".

Its hearsay but its logical hearsay.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
"Geeze, if it was pre-wired for demolition for "safety" and avoidance of collateral damage, I'd say it was a pretty crappy job then. Gee I dont think the Deutsche Bank Building was suppose to get destroyed. Or Fritterman Hall. Or WTC 3 - 6. Or damage done to the Verizon Building, Post Office, 90 West Street, or the rest of the surrounding buildings?"

Any average intelligence person would realize the purpose was to limit the collateral damage, not totally eliminate it. There is no way that you can take down two 110 story structures without having some sort of damage to the surrounding structures. Especially if the facade of the buildings have not been prepped with wire netting or whatever material to limit the expulsion of structural material.

On the other hand, if those two buildings had toppled in opposite directions, you are looking at about at least one half mile length of devastation in Lower Manhattan. The actual damage incurred to the surrounding properties was a drop in the bucket compared to the potential destruction the aforementioned scenario would have caused.

In addition, vaporizing the steel, concrete and other rigid structural materials also served the purpose of limiting damage. If those buildings had fallen over and the entire hard structural material came down with them, you are looking at an incredible amount of property damage. The purpose of demolishing the structures in they way that they did was to limit Property Damage (PD), since completely preventing some sort of PD was impossible.

"I'm not saying I agree with the topic at hand, but I don't see them admitting it, were it true. If it were released, it would be in 2110 or something."

Or more likely, when the statute of limitations have expired. The Government never admits liability for anything. They prefer to pay off the plaintiffs and keep the cases out of court, especially in a case where their stated version and the facts do not even come close to being congruent.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join