Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First World Trade Center Bombing Of 1993, Was It A Test For 9/11 I Wonder?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I am a firm believer that there were other devices planted inside the World Trade Center on 9/11. This got me to considering the possibility that the 1st trade center bombing was a test to see how much explosives would be required.

They could also test to see how the media would cover the event. I think the first bombing was indeed some kind of experiment.

I was wondering if anyone else had this in mind? I think its a real possibility but I am open to critisism, as long as its constructive




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I am unfortunately do not know about physics so me commenting on the relationship between the 2 events and if 1993 could have been a test is pretty useless. However, I think this definitely showed the US government could charge a terrorist subject extremely quickly with little evidence and the public would be into it also immediately. I think this is almost more important than figuring out how to bring the buildings down. Anyone can destroy a building, its getting the people to believe what you want them to believe is the hard part.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The repairs made after 1993 could well have included thermite based paint or who knows what else. It would be nice to know who got the contract for the repairs.

Connect the dots!
edit on 10-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Whether it was a test or not, it was another FBI manufactured sting operation, just like the rest of the "terrorist" attacks over the last several decades.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I am a firm believer that there were other devices planted inside the World Trade Center on 9/11. This got me to considering the possibility that the 1st trade center bombing was a test to see how much explosives would be required.

They could also test to see how the media would cover the event. I think the first bombing was indeed some kind of experiment.

I was wondering if anyone else had this in mind? I think its a real possibility but I am open to critisism, as long as its constructive




911research.wtc7.net...

--" The explosion resulted in six persons being killed, and more than 1,000 being injured; and resulted in nearly $300 million in property damage. "--

--" The explosion was caused by a 1500-pound urea-nitrate bomb, packed in a yellow Ford Econoline rental van, and detonated with a timer after the van had been parked in the basement parking garage. The explosion created a crater 200 feet by 100 feet wide and several stories deep. Evacuation of the twin towers began after the blast. Most of the injuries were due to smoke inhalation.

After the bombing, large improvements in the evacuation procedures for the Twin Towers were implemented."--


--"Despite the size of the explosion, it only damaged one support column for the Twin Towers. Cleanup and repair began immediately. Workers removed more than 6,000 tons of debris. The cleanup and repair operation cost about $500 million. "--

------------------------------------------->The cleanup and repair operation



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


So in 8 1/2 years nobody found any of the planted devices ?

Every time a tenant space was vacated the Port Authority would renovate it completely

The fireproofing had to be reapplied to the steel frequently - nobody saw anything?

Also tenants would make improvements to their space - none of them found anything?

Also explosives have a shelf live - after few years they either become ineffective or dangerously unstable

Nope - just someones conspiracy delusion



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


So in 8 1/2 years nobody found any of the planted devices ?

Every time a tenant space was vacated the Port Authority would renovate it completely

The fireproofing had to be reapplied to the steel frequently - nobody saw anything?

Also tenants would make improvements to their space - none of them found anything?

Also explosives have a shelf live - after few years they either become ineffective or dangerously unstable

Nope - just someones conspiracy delusion


Delusion ?


Tell me , do you believe the towers collapsed because of the fires melting the steel , like the delusional OSers ?
If so , why did the North Tower not collapse in `75 ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The 1993 bombings were for the express purpose of ridding the towers of
all real occupants, and to replace them with fake occupants (for the most part)
before the long-in-the-planning demolition date of 9/11/2001.

Massive insurance fraud was but one objective of the 9/11 operation.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I absolutely guarantee you that they wouldn't need any practice run to destroy a building. There are demolitions experts worldwide (commercial/ex military) that given the architectural drawings for the buildings and a little time could tell you EXACTLY where to place charges, how much was needed, what kind of explosive to use, where to strategically weaken the structure to ensure it fell in the right place, how long it would take and how much it would cost. Sorry OP but I don't agree in the slightest. The 1993 bombing was just a murderous lunatic with a truck full of fertilizer.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
The 1993 bombings were for the express purpose of ridding the towers of
all real occupants, and to replace them with fake occupants (for the most part)
before the long-in-the-planning demolition date of 9/11/2001.

Massive insurance fraud was but one objective of the 9/11 operation.


Do you have any information on it? Did many occupants terminate their lease after the attack or were they coerced to do so, or did they all kept their office spaces?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
You haven't seen your old friend parking her car in the lot for a few weeks, and one day as you are walking past the cemetery you see the undertaker digging a hole..



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
The repairs made after 1993 could well have included thermite based paint or who knows what else. It would be nice to know who got the contract for the repairs.

Connect the dots!


Ummmm, only one tower was affected, and only on the basement levels.

Therefore:

1- it is insane to suggest that repairs in the basement levels would initiate the collapses 80-90 stories up.

2- it is insane to suggest that repairs in the basement of one tower would have any affect at all on the other tower.

3- it is insane to suggest "whatever else" as a cause, for it is nothing more than an appeal to magic/imagination.

4- it is insane to suggest that there are any dots to connect



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
The 1993 bombings were for the express purpose of ridding the towers of
all real occupants, and to replace them with fake occupants (for the most part)
before the long-in-the-planning demolition date of 9/11/2001.

Massive insurance fraud was but one objective of the 9/11 operation.


I asked you a question over in your tower of lies thread, brah.

Answer it if you can.

A non-answer proves you are trolling and deserve to be kicked off ATS for it.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 

I stand proudly insane!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
I stand proudly insane!


LOL.

Quips aside, do you have any response?

You DO realize that your talking point was........ not reality based?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


It was based upon MY reality!

The towers started crumbling from the bottom or are my eyes lying?

Their were repairs made after 1993 at the bottom of one tower, the basement garage.

Neither you not I know, nor will we ever, the complete extent of all work, repairs or otherwise, done to any and all towers.

It seems logical, in MY reality, that repairs would be an ideal time to plant explosives. The FBI facilitated the 1993 attack. Are they 'losers' or did they (or CIA) be sure to get it right the second time? It could even have been a 2 stage plan from the very beginning.

Like my reality?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


It wasn't a test, but they used it as a way to send their team in to plant explosives for 9/11 maybe.

Although how could those explosives last 8 years ? unless they were ones that we are unaware of.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx

It was based upon MY reality!



Oh.

Ok then.....

>blinks<

have a nice life in your own little world brah....



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by pshea38
The 1993 bombings were for the express purpose of ridding the towers of
all real occupants, and to replace them with fake occupants (for the most part)
before the long-in-the-planning demolition date of 9/11/2001.

Massive insurance fraud was but one objective of the 9/11 operation.


Do you have any information on it? Did many occupants terminate their lease after the attack or were they coerced to do so, or did they all kept their office spaces?


I refer to the link from this previous post of mine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was the 93 'bombings' (whose narrative itself is full of holes)
and all the subsequent security upgrades a cover to allow the floors and tenents
to be removed in preperation for the demolition on 9/11?

I think so.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join