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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


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

Is this, or is this not the most obvious oxymoron you have ever seen??

For SAFETY reasons they added EXPLOSIVES in a building during construction???

So, anytime someone had to hang a picture in their office, you would have to be VERY CAREFUL...or BOOM!

classic!


[edit on 21-6-2010 by Six Sigma]




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


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

Is this, or is this not the most obvius oxymoron you have ever seen??
For SAFETY reasons they added EXPLOSIVES in a building during constraction???

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Six Sigma]


If you only brushed up on your reading comprehension you would of read the 1st post correctly. Not understanding something that was written is a major mistake especially when commenting on a forum.

Try again.

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



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Regarding that YouTube video you found....amazing, isn't it?

Here is a bit from the 'description' part under the video:


Christopher A Brown has demonstrated that the core columns of the twin towers were infact made of concrete. As a safety measure the designers had hermetically sealed explosives strategically sealed into the concrete. This was top secret.


Amazing...for ALL these years, the chorus has been ranting about the STEEL core columns...(which is actually true, the sturcture was centrally mad eof steel) but, it's convenient to accept THIS guy's cliams of explosives, and overlook his OTHER claims about NO steel core columns???

This sort of two-stepping (and three- and four-stepping, maybe?) is at the 'core' of the 'Truth' motives for years, and is actually the true 'smoking gun'...a propensity to latch on to any and all "stories", call them a "theory", and go from there, regardless...

Toss in a few red herrings along the way, and you got yourself a "movement"...



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder


If you only brushed up on your reading comprehension you would of read the 1st post correctly. Not understanding something that was written is a major mistake especially when commenting on a forum.

Try again.



So, WTC 1 & 2 were wired AFTER the 1993 bombing... read that, Chief. But then you claim that WTC 7 was also wired. I don't believe you stated if it were pre or post construction.

Not that it matters one iota. This theory ranks up there with Pod Planes, Holograms, and DEW weaponry.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


So, which is it??? Post 1993? If so, you disagree with Christopher A. Brown:


Christopher A Brown has demonstrated that the core columns of the twin towers were infact made of concrete. As a safety measure the designers had hermetically sealed explosives strategically sealed into the concrete. This was top secret.


Also, you have another poster, in your very thread, who is an advocate for the "PatriotsFor9/11" people....(who, BTW, are almost to a person CARBON COPIES of "PilotsFor9/11Truth...didja not notice???)...this other poster seems to vehemently disagree with you, espousing 'nukes'...or is it 'DEWs'...whatever, even though citing the SAME "Truth" group affiliations, and beliefs?


The contradictions are staggering....perhaps these other posters, and anyone ELSE who disagrees with you, fall into your other thread category, from some months back?


Here's your thread: 911 DISINFORMATION and Far-out Theories : Proof of Coverup

Scatter-shot, competing and conficting so-called "theories" continue, and abound, it seems...when will the madness end?






[edit on 21 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
well... i even had the OPs idea on my own. if you look at the pulverization of the wtc towers its pretty obvious and you cant deny the fact.

the facts is, that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition - 100%! so fact is, that the wtc towers must have been wired in advance. the wtc must not have been wired while in construction necessarily, it couldve been wired for years and years through "maintenace"-works.

the ops reasoning makes perfect sense to me + combine it with a needed pretext for an invasion and you get what happened this day.

and maybe some guys just wanted to get rid off their traces regarding the "financial-crisis" 9 years in advance?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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!!


Point me to a single professional investigation that has considered this theory and proven it to be true or false.

You will be the hero of ATS.

Dont post it here, make it a thread.

And when you do I will immediately start a petition to the site owners to have it made into its own forum.

Thanks in advance.
(sic)



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Wow! Deja Vu...


If I might be indulged to reprint a very old post of mine:



posted on 18-4-2009 @ 06:45 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:


Personally, I think the conspiracy theorists are "barking up the wrong tree".


The conspiracy is not whether the government was directly responsible for, or even, just complicit in, the terrorist plot. As the OP has intimated, it seems highly unlikely that the US government would, or even could pull off such a heinous act.

No, in MY opinion, the real conspiracy lies in the cover-up of the fact that once the planes hit the World Trade Center and it became obvious that the damage was severe enough to threaten the integrity of the structures, the authorities were forced to execute the Pre-Planned and Prepared Controlled Demolition of the WTC.



It is my belief that, after the truck bombing of the WTC in the '90's, the authorities became aware of the potential for catastrophic collateral damage to the surrounding real estate should either of the WTC towers fall due to similar attack in the future. A plan was then formulated, likely with the full knowledge and support of the government, that to mitigate the potential for collateral damage, the WTC complex would be "pre-wired" for a controlled demolition, should a future event threaten the structure's stability.

Knowing that the execution of such a drastic act would mean the sacrificing of perhaps tens of thousand of lives; the only saving grace to plan was the possibility that tens, or even a hundred thousand or more lives might be spared if the towers were not allowed to fall across the rest of the finacial district.

On that fateful day in September, the nightmare became reality and the order was given. The Twin Towers fell, 3,000 lost their lives.

How many more might have died if the towers had toppled over instead of collapsing in on themselves, we'll never know.

Nor will we likely ever know who actually gave the order to "flip the switch".



Furthermore, I believe that the World Trade Center is Not the Only skyscraper to be so "rigged" to implode on command.



But if word leaked out that other such prime pieces of real estate were similarly wired to self-destruct, can you imagine the public's reaction?

-Who would want to live or work in a building full of explosives? Who would build anywhere near such a high-rise time-bomb?

-How could the owners of the building andits tenents ever get any kind of insurance?

-Who would be held responsible if somethong should go wrong, causing a pre-mature collapse?


For these reasons, and many more, I believe that the government has decided to keep this contingency plan under the strictest of secrets.


THIS is what I believe to be the True Conspiracy arising from the tragedy of 9/11.





Odd how everything old can be made new again.

But then, the Truth is often much Stranger than Fiction.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I dont think we'll ever get official confirmation on this as its not knowledge you want the whole world to know!

But, I also have the scary feeling that the PTB may use this method to "settle" 9/11 once and for all. However, I dont think ANYONE in their right mind thinks building 7 deserved to be demolished "to protect other buildings". would have been much better just to put out the couple fires or let em burn out



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam Vimes
Risk of discovery too great.

not completely true

some of those steel beams in the towers
were hollow in the middle. That gives great
concealment at any level they desire.

Torch a hole in a few of those hollow beams
near the top floors and from there, use measured
rope to drop charges down the hollow beam to
where they would make the most impact. Lower
floors first so the charges didn't have to by-pass
each other in the confined space.

Your hollow steel beam now has become an
explosives express elevator which nobody uses and nobody
can find. Each charge has a different length
rope so they can determine down to the inch
where the charge will explode.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
If they did place explosives in the towers in the 90's then who is responsible for pulling the buildings and killing all those innocents who didn't get out on 9/11? Explosives should not go off until they are sent a specific charge to do so. Who did it then or who gave the command while people where still in the buildings? Nothing changes, innocents where killed for the wealth and beliefs of others. This just makes it even more of an inside job.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The contradictions are staggering....



It does no good to point out contradictions. Does everybody have to believe the same thing for any of them to be true? If you believe a little bit of information from someone, do you have to believe it all? Of course not. But you already knew this.

Nobody (probably) has all of the truth. But if we discuss, without somebody pointing out contradictions or (apparently) trying to stem the flow of discussion, maybe we can put all of our little bits of truth together and come to the real truth.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
While this theory has as much proof as the holograms and DEW, it was my first thought when I saw the video of the towers coming down. I remember thinking, when did they rig the buildings? As I have said before though, when we get proof of who was involved with the JFK assassination, wait 40 years and then start looking for answers to the inconsistencies being beaten to death here.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I remember thinking, when did they rig the buildings?


They had foreknowledge of when the attack was to occur. This has been stated by many agencies and governments. It was a very smart plan to have the building prepared incase of such a disaster.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Point me to a single professional investigation that has considered this theory and proven it to be true or false.

You will be the hero of ATS.

Dont post it here, make it a thread.

And when you do I will immediately start a petition to the site owners to have it made into its own forum.

Thanks in advance.
(sic)


Ah so because some guy claims that this is so, then we must automatically take it for truth and therefore plausible?? jprophet, what did I just finish making fun of in the other thread?


So then in that case, i shall make another thread about how it was truely in fact, Elvis himself who secretly pre-wired all three WTC buildings, right after his "mysterious" death. I mean come on, I said it, so therefore it must be plausible. I am an expert in dealing with Elvis sightings. I saw him a few times while in Las Vegas. Here is a sample what will be in that thread:

Elvis faked his own death in order to be a secret govt agent that does the evil bidding of the NWO. After the 93 WTC bombing, then sent in Elvis to pre-wire and rig up the WTC buildings with super-secret nanu nanu superdooper thermite bombs as a "safety" precaution. Now how could he rig it all up secretly? He managed to hide himself all these years after his alleged death and people believed he was dead, so no one will really notice him while he does his job. And if he is spotted, well who will believe it? "Huh I could have sworn I just saw Elvis in the elevator with a bomb and a lunchbox. Naaahh!" So that is how he toiled for years until 9/11. I heard from a guy, and another guy, and some chick, that actually saw someone who looked a lot like Elvis running from the WTC moments before the first collapse. He had a lunchbox in one hand and a remote detonator in the other. He jumped into a white Caddilac and sped away. Now with these expert eyewitness accounts, and the plausibility of the theory, and the evidence of the mysterys around Elvis's alleged death, then it all points to the fact that Elvis may have been the one who helped bring down the WTC. Now prove me wrong. I dare you all. I've researched this.

[edit on 6/22/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"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.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


Sphinx, there is alot you have to learn about the WTC design and why they would have NOT been able to topple over in one piece. A person with the average intelligence would also know this as how the heck can a 110 story building just tilt over from the base when it was hit by a plane 75 and 95 floors up.

Limiting collateral damage? Have you even seen the pictures from Ground Zero? at all? Limiting collateral damage just went out the window. Oh and three thousand people getting killed also does not fall under 'limited collateral damage". The firefighters, police, civilians, rescue teams, paramedics. Minimizing collateral damage my @$$.

And what vaporized steel? Where? When? Sphinx, are you just repeating the same garbage from the equally wrong TM sites? Did you miss all the exterior columns laying all over Ground Zero? Did you miss the core columns recovered? I dont think anyone mentioned about missing columns.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by network dude
I remember thinking, when did they rig the buildings?


They had foreknowledge of when the attack was to occur. This has been stated by many agencies and governments. It was a very smart plan to have the building prepared incase of such a disaster.


I wanted to add that the towers did not need to be rigged on every floor but mainly on 3 sub sections. The top part was used to demolition the lower sections as it fell while the lower sub-sections were weakend.





[edit on 22-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Point me to a single professional investigation that has considered this theory and proven it to be true or false.



I don't think a lack of investigation on a theory means a lot. I can have a theory that superman caused the collapse of the WTC towers and then say.

Point me to a single professional investigation that has considered the superman theory and proven it to be true or false.

A professional investigation won't even CONSIDER the superman theory. Also it would be IMPOSSIBLE to prove the superman theory true or false!

I won't consider this theory because the only evidence that supports it is a youtube video.

I also won't consider this theory because when watching countless videos of the collapse of the twin towers and comparing them to demolitions I notice some blaring differences.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.

Leading me to believe that if something other than airplanes and fire assisted with the collapse of the WTC towers it was either not explosives OR it was silent micronukes, death star energy beams, thermite or nano-thermite, or some other sort of super advanced silent explosives. It was not your average, run of the mill explosives installed back in 1994.

I also won't consider this theory because according to these websites:

science.howstuffworks.com...

the building must be gutted otherwise, when the explosives go off, office chairs and desks and people would go flying all over the place.

www.allaboutpadre.com...

"the building was gutted of all internal elements down to the bar concrete shell to ensure that such materials would not be blown around the demolition site following the implosion."

Now I didn't see office desks and chairs and people all flying out of the windows prior to the collapse so I believe that is evidence that the buildings were not wired with loud BOOM BOOM BOOM explosives in the 1990's.


[edit on 22-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Why if the top of the towers leaned over continued to fall through the most of the floors to the ground? It should of toppled over.


[edit on 22-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
In time when the truth is mainstream, this thread's information will be used as an excuse as to why and how the towers fell.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join