are any other skyscrapers fitted with explosives?

on September 11th 2001, I, like many others was glued to the news looking for anything to point to an end to the carnage. I had a lot of emotion running through me. Fear, sadness, anger, and confusion. I guess I don't fit the mold of a 100% truther. I won't go out and claim to know anything at all about what really happened that day. I will say that I, like many others, feel the questions that remain haven't been answered and most likely won't be answered anytime soon. But while watching Tower 1 fall, after seeing tower 2 fall, I remember thinking "how did they get explosives into that building?" And that was long before anybody mentioned the truth movement or an inside job.

Now I could be wrong and it could very well be that two planes striking two sky scrapers in seemingly unrelated positions caused them to fall as they did. Not being a structural engineer, I lack the skills to say for sure. But I had a thought. What if at some point most, or at least some of the major buildings were up-fitted with charges to bring them down straight instead of sideways? Surely of that was the case, then it wouldn't be public knowledge for obvious reasons. But in light of the first attack on WTC in '93, it might be that some government group decided to reduce civilian casualties by setting these buildings up this way. I mean, if a building had a charge set off in a bottom corner and it started to lean, then fall, there is no telling how many buildings would be lost let alone the people in them.

This theory can be very easily proven true or false by any maintenance supervisor of a large building. I don't know if there are any members on ATS who might have access to this kind of information, but it would be very interesting to know. It certainly would answer a multitude of questions.

If this seems like the ramblings of a lunatic, then good, that is exactly what it is so I am happy to keep it real.

reply to post by network dude


In the US are there not any laws about health and safety ? If there are, what do they say about introducing explosives into areas where people are working ?

reply to post by network dude
Occupied buildings fitted with explosive charges? I doubt it.


If it was my building to take care of, as you mentioned maintenance men, I would notice such a thing.

In the 1970's I could not buy more than one pound of black powder at one time without showing proof that I had a bunker outside my house to store it in. During the same time period, one of my employers had explosives stolen from him that were used in the murder of a man by bombing his car. The FBI traced it back to my employer, they said the explosives were tagged and able to be traced through the microscopic fragments it left.

I'm in charge of some buildings, a maintenance man. I would know if explosives were planted, and they could not pay me off. I doubt they paid off anyone in the towers, because I doubt the demolition theory.

No, in my opinion there has never been a building with hidden secret demolition charges. Its illogical, how many years would pass before they are used? What are the odds the building would eventually upgrade some sort of system such as a/c phone lines etc, walls would be knocked down at some point. How about routine structural inspections? General maintenance? Shelf life of explosives?

Too many variables.

reply to post by network dude


Let us not get past the first hurdle when looking at things like this, Health and safety wouldn't allow it to begin with, if you have a building secured like this (dealt with H&S) and you have your best people in the building, it is too much of a risk if someone was to discover this system and demo the building with your stars inside, business / government / doctor evils hench men would be taken out in a single blow.

There are to many other issues in doing this to, first off the cost and planning would be too much, for explosives to be incorporated into the building for demolition purposes the buildings are weakened to allow the explosives to work to bring down the building, so reduce the working life of the building / risk of collapse increasing due to this.

The Explosives wouldn't be effective for very long if they were in a damp / wet / cold environment

Too much of a risk to be found during building checks

Some one will blab, they always do

Wee Mad

thanks for the replys. I know it sounds like a wacky theory and apparently it is. But it was something I had thought about before and figured I would put it out there for discussion.

Please ignore the crazy guy in the corner.

very interesting theory network guy. i can imagine the owners of the buildings next door wouldnt have been impressed if 2 skyscrapers fell into their CEOs window. No doubt they would have thought about this the day before they had the planes kill the other guys doods. It is very possible that Nixon/Bush/Trump alliance had the masons put bombs in there to prevent this, and no doubt in the buildings that are to be attacked on 10/10/10.
S&F for you my friend.

Considering Silverstein bought the Sears Tower in Chicago in 2004....I would not be surprised if that building was being outfitted with explosives...Also interesting that Kroll Security (WTC security co.) took over Sears Tower soon after 911...

reply to post by Vincitori


in mason school when theu were teaching world domination and how to correctly prepare babies for dinner, they never discussed EOD. (Explosive ordinance disposal) I suspect it's the Baptist church or maybe the Mormons who do the demolition.

reply to post by network dude

No. Its for real the masons. Bush are masons so is Trump and the ancient egyptians. The best way to dis-info is to tell truth. Who are you really and are you behind all this? Does americas base belong to you.

reply to post by Vincitori


//sigh//

yes, I am afraind all your base are belong to us.