Could explosives have been put into the World Trade Centers during construction?

What kind of explosives were available 30 years ago for building demolition?

I can't help but wonder if explosives could have been incorporated into the world trade centers as they were being built.

So lets say that you wanted to proceed with the demolition at a latter date. You would probably send in your people to check that all of the charges were still in place a little before the event. Lets say a week or two before hand.




[edit on 30-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

As I stated in the WTC7 thread, the main problem with all explosives is that they don't last forever. Their chemistry changes, albeit slowly, over time. You can't just leave them sitting there for years. They'll either become inert, or at least unable to be detonated, or become unstable and explode the moment its moved the wrong way. How the explosive ages depends on the type of explosive and the age of it as some become unstable then later inert.

As such, you'd have to replace every single charge in the weeks and months before the attack to be sure of collapse, which leads back to all the problems of installing the tons of explosives in thousands of locations without any tenants noticing.

I am curious as to why you think the Port Authority of New York, which viewed the Trade Center as their crowning achievment, would plan to destroy it before it was even done.

Originally posted by STR
... the main problem with all explosives is that they don't last forever. Their chemistry changes, albeit slowly, over time. You can't just leave them sitting there for years. They'll either become inert, or at least unable to be detonated, or become unstable and explode the moment its moved the wrong way. How the explosive ages depends on the type of explosive and the age of it as some become unstable then later inert.

Can't they be encased like they are in a bomb?

Encased bombs remain stable for 30 years don't they?

Aren't bombs designed to withstand minor impacts until armed?

I am curious as to why you think the Port Authority of New York, which viewed the Trade Center as their crowning achievment, would plan to destroy it before it was even done.

That's where things get a little more complicated.

May I suggest that you watch,"Get Smart! Episode 52"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Detonators are very sensetive to RF interference. If you stand too close to one with a radio or a cell phone, or even a regular phone, then it can go off. And if the detonator goes off, your explosive charge goes with it. If they WERE built in, then at some point you would expect at least one of them to have gone off when someone with a radio or phone was standing too close to one and accidentally set off the detonator.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Detonators are very sensetive to RF interference. If you stand too close to one with a radio or a cell phone, or even a regular phone, then it can go off. And if the detonator goes off, your explosive charge goes with it. If they WERE built in, then at some point you would expect at least one of them to have gone off when someone with a radio or phone was standing too close to one and accidentally set off the detonator.

What if you wired the buildings and built encased bombs into the structure itself at construction, then put the detonators into the bombs a week before the big implosion?

[edit on 30-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

You would need a couple of dozen people, and you'd STILL have a good chance of them going off.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You would need a couple of dozen people, and you'd STILL have a good chance of them going off.

So now we are down to two dozen or so people.

What would be in danger of being set off, the 30 year old encased bomb or the detonators being put into them?

At the minimum, you would need 20-30 people per tower. And the danger would be both. The 30 year old explosives that would be unstable, and the detonators going off, which would set off the 30 year old degraded explosives.

Originally posted by STR
As I stated in the WTC7 thread, the main problem with all explosives is that they don't last forever. Their chemistry changes, albeit slowly, over time. You can't just leave them sitting there for years. They'll either become inert, or at least unable to be detonated, or become unstable and explode the moment its moved the wrong way. How the explosive ages depends on the type of explosive and the age of it as some become unstable then later inert.

As such, you'd have to replace every single charge in the weeks and months before the attack to be sure of collapse, which leads back to all the problems of installing the tons of explosives in thousands of locations without any tenants noticing.

I am curious as to why you think the Port Authority of New York, which viewed the Trade Center as their crowning achievment, would plan to destroy it before it was even done.

Because David Rockefeller was running the port authority and he is like Mr. Illumaniti unless you heard otherwise in the USA. Besides you and others overlook annother important point and it is the design into the structure of an easy way to bring the building down.

Additionally, other newer explosive materials contain inhibitors and/or stabilizers that lengthen the shelf life of the products. Some explosive products now contain TNT, Composition "B", Pentolite, Tetryl, RDX, PETN and other military type explosives which are extremely stable over a wide range of conditions for a long period of time. Many of these products have virtually unlimited shelf life.

www.ime.org...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Explosives might, but detonators don't. And you're not setting off an explosive without a detonator. And as I said earlier, they're fairly sensetive to EM interference.

after reading this thread im starting to wonder if i dont need a break from ats for a while. maybe the OP needs a long break too, considering the absoloutely ludicrous idea that this could be A possible and B not noticed by the "average joe" in the construction crew, not to mention the other debunking posts in this thread. were all looking for the patsy, the man behind the curtain, and i can say with a good degree of certainty THERE IS NONE

explosions if they were in the WTC the most likely time would of been during the Clinton adminstration when the first attack happen. A van drove in the parking garage and exploded which caused the evaucation of everyone in there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 30 year old explosives that would be unstable, and the detonators going off, which would set off the 30 year old degraded explosives.

How about Tritonal?

I thought it was fairly stable.

Tritonal is a mixture of 80% TNT and 20% aluminum powder, used in several types of ordnance.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some Sensitivity and Performance Characteristics of the Explosives H-6 and Tritonal

Abstract: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relative energies of H-6 and Tritonal as measured by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) Cylinder Test, a test which measures relative metal accelerating ability.

Limitations: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Description: Final rept. Mar 1972-Jun 1973

www.stormingmedia.us...

It's also used in munitions. Demo charges are a specific type. But even if the explosive IS stable the detonator won't be, and the longer it's in place the more chance of an accidental discharge.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's also used in munitions. Demo charges are a specific type. But even if the explosive IS stable the detonator won't be, and the longer it's in place the more chance of an accidental discharge.

Would a detonator be stable for a week?

Depends on the detonators, but usually. But again, you have thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people walking in that building, using cell phones, and radios. Every one of those has a chance of setting off a detonator.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Depends on the detonators, but usually. But again, you have thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people walking in that building, using cell phones, and radios. Every one of those has a chance of setting off a detonator.

There are no detonators which are immune to radio frequencies?

not particuarly. unless the building was wired entierly with det-cord. even that has to have a central detonator to ignite...

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
not particuarly. unless the building was wired entierly with det-cord. even that has to have a central detonator to ignite...

Well if we are discussing the hypothetical placement of explosives during the construction of the buildings, they probably would have wired in det-cord as well, yes?

A central detonator could be located just about anywhere, yes?

essentially. but it would have to be RF activated, considering im pretty sure no one in the usa govt who would be "hypothetically" involved would want to be a martyr... so we come back to the RF accidental trigger problem