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.

 

Secret retrofitting of the World Trade Center for explosive demolition was very possible.

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Not only was secret retrofitting of three World Trade Center buildings possible without anybody noticing or knowing, it did happen to another building in Manhattan: The CitiBank/CitiCorp Tower:





For a different and more in-depth version, you can watch All Fall Down:

Part 1:



Part2:



Part3:




Part 3 above goes into great detail of the secret retrofit of the CitiCorp/CitiBank tower in Manhattan.

Next we have Professional Electrical Engineer, Richard Humenn, who was also the chief electrical engineer of the World Trade Center complex. He was responsible for designing and wiring the towers as well as the rest of the complex. He goes into detail about how easy it was to access the interior columns from the elevator shafts:





And finally, we have World Trade Center construction worker Phillip Morelli who describes how there was always construction work going on at the World Trade Center:





Many people have said that there was no way to rig the WTC buildings without anyone noticing. But the only columns that needed to be rigged were the core columns which were out of site of the public, and easily accessible from the elevator shafts. As we've seen with the CitiCorp fiasco, a building can be retrofitted without anyone of the public the wiser.

And at the World Trade Center, it would've been easier to rig the buildings without much notice because of constant construction and maintenance going on almost 24/7 at the complex. Tenants and workers at the World Trade Center were used to seeing construction and maintenance workers constantly coming and going without thought.

The secret retrofitting of the World Trade Center for explosive demolition was not only very possible, it was more than likely.







edit on 24-5-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hell Bonez Now THAT IS secret ?


Peace



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
Hell Bonez Now THAT IS secret ?

I accidentally hit the "Return" key after typing the title which posted my thread with no content.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Excellent find! I think is is one of the more probable explanations for the way things happened. The potential for this to go on unnoticed coupled with the security system shutdown the weekend prior sure helps build a good case. S&F



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Thanks op will watch all these later on.

How much longet can ppl ignore what really happened?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Fantastic find Bonez! Even though we all knew it was possible and one of the most likely scenarios in regards to the WTC towers, so many members have written it off as fantasy and ridiculed those who would propose such an idea beyond belief because nobody could point out a historical precedent. I can't wait to see the "where's the cables" crowd and hologram/laser beam experts "opinions" of this. Undoubtedly, the videos you posted, the persons involved in making the film, the building itself, and Bonez will all be "discredited" by the aforementioned experts for one ridiculous reason or another. Or, thier silence will be deafening.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
WOW there was always something going on so lets look at the REAL reason for that.

MAINTENANCE yes a plain and simple reason, the towers were effectively vertical cites what happens if services are not maintained in a city ,it grinds to a halt!! looks like you are clutching at straws again bonez!

So provide a link to any building like the towers built around the same time that doesn't have regular maintenance work!

There are 1001 companies round the world that specialise in that type of maintenance work.

LOOK under facilities management if you are stuck!
edit on 25-5-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's always been my belief that 9/11 was planned before 1993. The plan was a big one.

  • Get "terrorists" to execute a failed attack on WTC (1993)
  • The attack was designed to topple building
  • This creates legitmate "incentive" to protect city from topple
  • Solution is to pre-rig building to protect from WTC topple
  • Now you are set for Phase 2
  • 9/11


edit on 25-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Good thread, better than almost all 911 conspiracy threads in that you actually post some information, and make an argument.

I'd like to point out, however, that this job was not done secretly. It was done with the full knowledge and cooperation of the building ownership and management, construction companies, unions, engineers, city government, New York Times Reporters, and many others.

The movie does not even claim that no one noticed the work that was being done, only that only a few people really understood the extent and purpose of it. I see no reason to believe that all the people involved would have kept their mouths shut in the event that the work done had led directly to 3000 deaths, as in the case of the world trade center. In addition, this was a legitmate retrofit, not planting bombs in the structure. There is Zero evidence that anyone actually planted such explosives.

Additionally your assertion that only the core columns would need to be tampered with is inconsistent with the observation that the core structure of the north tower remained standing after the collapse of the perimeter structure. If the core columns had been the ones tampered with in a controlled demolition, to the exclusion of the perimeter columns, surely they would be the first to fail.

All the same this is a much higher level of discussion than "#911truthwinning" and other similar bilge.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I would like to see Security CCTV footage of the goods/freight lifts in the weeks leading up to 911.
All goods lifts contain CCTV camera's as they need to be monitored constantly for people accessing secure floors.
I would also like to see CCTV footage of the basement levels where the goodslifts are accessed from.

I'm a big believer that the towers didnt topple from the planes...
why?

the lower levels ALWAYS supported the weight of the upper levels for decades, nothing changed in the lowerlevels, there's no reason they should have collapsed.

Lets see that footage, if there's an unusual amount of movement with unmarked vans and people working long shifts with large loads... yep.. somethings up!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I would like to see Security CCTV footage of the goods/freight lifts in the weeks leading up to 911.
All goods lifts contain CCTV camera's as they need to be monitored constantly for people accessing secure floors.
I would also like to see CCTV footage of the basement levels where the goodslifts are accessed from.

I'm a big believer that the towers didnt topple from the planes...
why?

the lower levels ALWAYS supported the weight of the upper levels for decades, nothing changed in the lowerlevels, there's no reason they should have collapsed.
Lets see that footage, if there's an unusual amount of movement with unmarked vans and people working long shifts with large loads... yep.. somethings up!


Underlined above learn something about loading before making silly comments thats a staic load try this to see the difference get a very heavy weight you can just hold then get someone to hold it a couple of feet above your arms and drop it then see if the load seems the same.


Everything seems simple WHEN you dont actually have any experience about what you are talking about!

Look up loadings look at static. dynamic , shock, wind etc etc many different types its not as simple as YOU make it sound!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I don't know if you've seen this older thread of mine but I thought you might find it of interest...
Get Smart! Episode 52



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


true..
but it wasnt dropped was it?
there wasnt space between for it to develop speed?

It was a solid structure top to bottom.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I would like to see Security CCTV footage of the goods/freight lifts in the weeks leading up to 911.
All goods lifts contain CCTV camera's as they need to be monitored constantly for people accessing secure floors.
I would also like to see CCTV footage of the basement levels where the goodslifts are accessed from.

I'm a big believer that the towers didnt topple from the planes...
why?

the lower levels ALWAYS supported the weight of the upper levels for decades, nothing changed in the lowerlevels, there's no reason they should have collapsed.
Lets see that footage, if there's an unusual amount of movement with unmarked vans and people working long shifts with large loads... yep.. somethings up!


Underlined above learn something about loading before making silly comments thats a staic load try this to see the difference get a very heavy weight you can just hold then get someone to hold it a couple of feet above your arms and drop it then see if the load seems the same.


Everything seems simple WHEN you dont actually have any experience about what you are talking about!

Look up loadings look at static. dynamic , shock, wind etc etc many different types its not as simple as YOU make it sound!


Actually mate you are the one who seems to have no experience in what you're talking about and are just repeating what you've read somewhere.

Static, or dynamic, load the laws of physics still apply regardless. The mass of the building will still slow down the collapse due to loss of Ke to resistance, noise, heat, deformation, ejection of materiel etc., Ke can not increase, and be converted to other energy, at the same time. You still have a smaller mass, 15 floors, dropping on a larger mass, 95 floors.

But of course all that is assuming the collapse initiated as claimed by the NIST report, sagging trusses and all that nonsense. It assumes the whole top block could fail, and collapse as one block, from fire and asymmetrical damage. It assumes sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to.
It assumes those large columns could be ripped apart in two places by the much lighter sagging trusses. It's just assumptions after assumptions.

That is why the NIST report is only an hypothesis and not an investigation. An hypothesis is still wide open to question. Until it is proven it is meaningless.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Underlined above learn something about loading before making silly comments thats a staic load try this to see the difference get a very heavy weight you can just hold then get someone to hold it a couple of feet above your arms and drop it then see if the load seems the same. Everything seems simple WHEN you dont actually have any experience about what you are talking about! Look up loadings look at static. dynamic , shock, wind etc etc many different types its not as simple as YOU make it sound!


I can't believe people still make claims like this despite how easy it is to falsify by simple experiment.

You are basically describing the Bazant collapse scenario, but any physical structure constructed along the lines that Bazant advocates WILL FAIL TO COLLAPSE COMPLETELY.

It is not a theoretical question, it is a matter of empirical reality. Anybody can go build a structure like Bazant describes and test it and see for themselves that it is not a simple matter of static vs. dynamic loadings.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Heroes don't lie!



firefightersfor911truth.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Paul Lafolley was an architect for a while at the WTC at first but then got fired later.

About 7.5 minutes into this interview he talks about how explosives were incorporated into the design.

www.mikehagan.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by randalljm
About 7.5 minutes into this interview he talks about how explosives were incorporated into the design.


Laffoley does not say that charges were incorporated into the sTruCTure.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


true..
but it wasnt dropped was it?
there wasnt space between for it to develop speed?

It was a solid structure top to bottom.


To develop free fall speed "acceleration" there must be less resistance under the mass falling.
All three buildings accelerated with a speed very close to 10m/sec^2.
The requirements to be able to fall with a acceleration speed of 10m/sec^2. Is that the mass must be falling at least through air. But ideally in a vacuum.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
all you need to do now is show the evidence of the blasting caps found in the rubble

explosions don't vaporize the caps into oblivion

show me the caps



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join