There HAD to be explosives in the twin towers

I read somewhere a while back (I forget where) that Insurance companies wouldn't insure the buildings surrounding the WTC unless WTC 1 & 2 had a means of being brought down incase of an emergance.

Has any one else heard of this?

Im sorry if this has been discussed before but i couldnt find it anywhere.

I hadn't heard anything about that, but I have heard that the Port Authority wanted to dismantle WTC 1 and 2 because it was "an aging dinosaur" but they were prohibited from demolishing them, so would have to dismantle them. It would have cost $15B to dismantle them. Ut oh, I guess that means the Port Authority was in on it too.

This smells like disinfo to me.

Imagine ringing around for car insurance, they ask if it's modified and you reply "No, well execept for the 5lbs of C4 I have under the floor..."

What right minded company would insure a building they knew was rigged with explosives?

Had a means of being brought down in case of an emergency? Are you trying to imply that there were explosives in the towers, or are you saying that the building's owners needed to have a plan in place to dismantle the towers if they were ever damaged by a hurricane or earthquake, or something along those lines.

How was the world trade center an aging dinosaur? The buildings were completed in 1972, I think. What is that, like 35 years ago? If the World Trade Center towers were an aging dinosaur, then what is the Empire State building? Or, the Chrysler building? Or, Sears Tower?





[edit on 4/2/07 by savage99]

I'm just quoting what the Port Authority said, but it had a lot to do with the Asbestos that was used for fireproofing during construction. There was no way to remove the Asbestos without dismantling entire floors apparently.

As for the explosives, unless they're some kind of "covert military explosives" they WILL degrade over time. No explosive is perfectly stable, and detonators are INCREDIBLY susceptible to RF and EM radiation, which can cause them to go off unscheduled. With all the cell phones, computers, and other devices that give off this type of radiation, you would be taking an INSANE risk by having a building with explosives built into it from the start.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for the explosives, unless they're some kind of "covert military explosives" they WILL degrade over time.

The ealiest versions of SEMTEX were the most lethal.

Jaroslav Pulicar says point-blank it’s not in Explosia’s interests to offer a product that crumbles to dust after three years.

When asked how many years he thought Semtex would remain effective, Pulicar replied, “Sixty, 70, 80...150, maybe 200 years, maybe more. No one knows.”

Ivo Varga, Explosia’s senior technologist, agrees.

So, those hundreds of tons in Qaddafi’s warehouse? The stacks of red bricks in IRA basements? Chunks of death stored in the outposts of South American guerillas? Their efficacy will not change in the forseeable future, even as the political clashes surrounding them do. Semtex will not automatically degrade. It will not become inert. It has no measured lifespan, no expiration date.

prague.tv...

Detonators could have been added a few days before the demolitions.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

And no one is going to notice them going to every floor that has explosives, and going into the walls? Not to mention that if you ever watch people that handle explosives, the detonators are attached minutes or no more than an hour or two, in the case of a building demo, before the explosives are supposed to go off. They're not stable, and there's a lot of risk involved in handling them, especially once they're installed in the explosives.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by Zaphod58]

Ive seen several eye-witness (in this case ear-witness) accounts of suspicious and loud 'noises' in the towers, weeks prior to 9/11.

And then there's the President's brother, Marvin Bush, who was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center.

Plenty of opportunity to plant explosives if you control the company that provides the security for the WTC.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by freakyty]

Except Marvin wasn't with the security company anymore. He left them in 1999 or 2000 and was working for one of the insurance companies that had the policy on the WTC.

Boy, isn't that covienient. I just had to laugh when you explained away one thing while implicating him in the other. Not laughing at you but it just made me giggle.

Edited out direct quote above me.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Griff]

I never said there wasn't something suspicious about it, but saying that it would have been easy for him to do something about putting bombs in the buildings because he was with the security company is wrong. It's like Burlingame with MASCAL. He had nothing to do with the exercise they claim, but everyone points to it, because a few places say he did.

Like I said, I wasn't really making a point. You're right. When talking about this stuff, it's best to keep the true truth.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except Marvin wasn't with the security company anymore.

Yeah, but his cousin still run the show there, and that doesnt mean he could't have insiders in the co. It's not like it'd be the entire company in on it, and it'd be ideal for Marvin to not be working there directly during the disaster assuming it was some preplanned well in advance scenario.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And no one is going to notice them going to every floor that has explosives, and going into the walls? Not to mention that if you ever watch people that handle explosives, the detonators are attached minutes or no more than an hour or two, in the case of a building demo, before the explosives are supposed to go off. They're not stable, and there's a lot of risk involved in handling them, especially once they're installed in the explosives.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by Zaphod58]

There were emergency drills at both towers in the months before 911 where whole floors were evacuated for 6 to 10 hrs at a time weren't there?

INWT
that was a great article you quoted, real interesting

the only distinction id like to point out is that the SHELF LIFE is different from the SERVICE LIFE in this particular case. yeah, bullets, some rockets, even c-4 will not degrade in storage. but c-4 and semtex come wrapped in plastic for a reason. and there are times when setting up a shot that you do actually have to cut into the plastic wrapper on c4 in order to set up your charges. (dont want to use a full package when half will do and give our shot away now do we?)

think of it this way, inside the little egg silly putty lasts a long time. take it out of the egg and over time what happens to it? (thats a real question i dont actually know)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except Marvin wasn't with the security company anymore. He left them in 1999 or 2000 and was working for one of the insurance companies that had the policy on the WTC.

Oh, so he went to the insurance side of the deal then.

But one of his cousins, a Walker (as in 'W') was still on the board.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And no one is going to notice them going to every floor that has explosives, and going into the walls? Not to mention that if you ever watch people that handle explosives, the detonators are attached minutes or no more than an hour or two, in the case of a building demo, before the explosives are supposed to go off. They're not stable, and there's a lot of risk involved in handling them, especially once they're installed in the explosives.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by Zaphod58]

There were emergency drills at both towers in the months before 911 where whole floors were evacuated for 6 to 10 hrs at a time weren't there?

Let's not forget the unheard of "power down" on the weekend before 9/11, when they turned off all electricity in the towers (no security cameras functioning, how convenient) to put in "computer cabling" which wouldn't have affected the electrical systems in the slightest.

ummm maybe my insomnias gotten the best of me, ill admit thats possible.

but, could anyone explain why youd have to do a full powerdown to plant explosives? i mean, youd want somewhere to plug in or recharge youre power equipment (cuz you would need to get to at least a few difficult areas) you'd want at least some light and flashlights are pain in the tukus to work by, and you could have had a cover story to just turn off the security systems, cuz upgrading the security system as a whole would give you access to wire conduits and have a reason to shut it off...

so yeah, why power the buildings down totally?

Security / Safety lights are battery powered and turn on automatically. From there flashlights fill in the blanks.

What I dont understad is why power them down PERIOD?!

I haven't read too much into the details about the powerdowns just yet, and really need to soon, but perhaps something happening at WTC7 could be the culprit as it was the power substation for the WTC. Did anyone ever notice any details that mentioned WTC7 in light of the powerdowns?

Also, were any of the backup generators disabled during this event?

[edit on 10-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]