The WTC was Pre-Rigged with Explosives as a Safety Precaution

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Designing the towers in a way that it is no headache to rig them for demolition, when their time is up is very reasonable and it wouldnt surprise me if it was and is a requierment.

There have been too many sky scrapers built over the years. If this was common place it would also be common knowledge. Plus there have been many many sky scraper builders fired over the decades, some of them would have talked about secret demolition building practices.

Designing a tower in a way that it can be demolished in a reasonable way with explosives is not secret demolition building practice. What exactly are they going to spill the beans about? That the constructions they were involved with will come down in their own footprint if explosives are applied in key components and set off in a timely fashion?

originally posted by: Cassius666

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Designing the towers in a way that it is no headache to rig them for demolition, when their time is up is very reasonable and it wouldnt surprise me if it was and is a requierment.

There have been too many sky scrapers built over the years. If this was common place it would also be common knowledge. Plus there have been many many sky scraper builders fired over the decades, some of them would have talked about secret demolition building practices.

Designing a tower in a way that it can be demolished in a reasonable way with explosives is not secret demolition building practice. What exactly are they going to spill the beans about? That the constructions they were involved with will come down in their own footprint if explosives are applied in key components and set off in a timely fashion?

It is a known fact that before you are allowed to build a skyskraper you have to have the plans for its demolition in mind. The twin towers after 1993 bombing was questioned as to how safe New Yorkers were if the towers were to fall. The implementation of a collapse plan was needed for insurance to accept liability.

Well, I have always thought the 1993 event was suspicious too. For the sake of argument, let's say both events were "inside jobs" of some sort. You have to wonder what the purpose of the 1993 one could have been if it was done by the same people.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

It is a known fact that before you are allowed to build a skyskraper you have to have the plans for its demolition in mind.

Can you show us proof of that?

originally posted by: eeyipes
I can conceptualize a million possiblities, but that doesn't make them so. All I'm saying is a reliable source of information would make the possiblity more valid for discussion.

And you've hit on the problem with so many of these theories. Supposedly, all you need is a deep distrust of the government, extreme paranoia, and a belief of something being possible, and you can ignore all contradictory evidence and ignore the need to prove your theory and just roll with your "belief".

None of this is based in any physical evidence, when in contrast there is a mountain of evidence explaining what happened. We have thousands of witnesses who all saw what happened, we have plenty of physical evidence showing what happened, we have hours of video footage showing these events unfolding, we have structural engineers and architects explaining the flaws in the building and how these flaws caused the catastrophic failure, and yet still people will reach for any remotely possible little nugget of accusation to believe a fantasy instead.

I didn't read the entire thread..

But if the explosives were sealed that means they would have to be triggered by wireless control.

it's my understanding that demo companies use wires to trigger their explosives because it is the safest most reliable way to do so, wireless is a concern because a signal on the wrong frequency and boom.

Also... Don't explosives get unreliable as they age... Sealing explosives up seems dangerous and stupid.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Would you care to provide some definitive proof of that little statement?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: Cassius666

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Designing the towers in a way that it is no headache to rig them for demolition, when their time is up is very reasonable and it wouldnt surprise me if it was and is a requierment.

There have been too many sky scrapers built over the years. If this was common place it would also be common knowledge. Plus there have been many many sky scraper builders fired over the decades, some of them would have talked about secret demolition building practices.

Designing a tower in a way that it can be demolished in a reasonable way with explosives is not secret demolition building practice. What exactly are they going to spill the beans about? That the constructions they were involved with will come down in their own footprint if explosives are applied in key components and set off in a timely fashion?

It is a known fact that before you are allowed to build a skyscraper you have to have the plans for its demolition in mind. The twin towers after 1993 bombing was questioned as to how safe New Yorkers were if the towers were to fall. The implementation of a collapse plan was needed for insurance to accept liability.

Give me some time to find the codes. When building of this size are designed, it is important that wind load, materials needed, weight of entire building, vibrations and sway tolerances are adhered to and the plan for its deconstruction whether by implosion or dismantling are very much of importance any disagreement with the building codes and the port authority would not let one shovel break ground.

You cant just build something that can topple over many city blocks, buildings and people. Insurance would not allow it.
The twin towers were designed not to topple over like a tree.

If I may....

I believe the plane impact and RAGING fires were enough to bring the towers down in the exact manner we saw on video.

However, I'm a highly skeptical LIHOP / MIHOP person, but firmly believe we saw what we saw. A house of cards is the best model.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

This is no surprise and we also expected the Building 7 to have been pre-wired....now they can explain the MULTIPLE SOURCES OF NANO-THERMITE which are there,Building 7s AND the Twin Towers.

Cool now we have the dynamic forced another step and this opens up many more doors for us to peek into.

They played some cards because they were forced to now the game changes and they add a LOT more to the kitty.

Now we back-engineer the LEGASLATIONS and MACHINATIONS which lead to the changes which allowed the TTs to be wired....who initiated and endorsed these rules allowing the wiring of the Towers...we dont care about the legalitys of it all we want to know grassroots exactly WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING THE LEGESLATION WHICH FACILLITATED THE WIRING OF THE TOWERS TO SUPPORT A LONG TERM AGENDAS SUBSTANTITION LATER.

Then you reverse engineer the decision to wire Building #7 and discover who spearheaded this action or take it back to who grssroots spearheaded putting the Building #7 where it was so it "could be wired" to further the substantition later of a longer running agenda.

The plot thickens.

Now that they think they have saved his bacon or maybe he does we need to find out from the Mayor EXACTLY WHO told him to PULL building #7....the name please.

It seems someone is trying to drop any Navy or Government involvement in Building 7s intentional demolitions so they are now trying to facillitate the parsing of the catalyst of both the Twin Towers AND Building 7s being wired for demolition pre-attack together into one....say both were wired for the same reason under the same protocals developed after a prior attack....this is awsome they just narrowed the trail for the truth seekers funneled everything to one source....grassroots source at that .

Whoever catalysed the envisioning of the facillitating legeslation allowing the protocals to wire domestic building like was done.. needs to be named ..this is the lynch-pin of this particular off-shoot of the main scent trail they have run everyone onto now......but we havent forgotten how we got to this spot either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread covers more general and specific info.

a reply to: Oldtimer2

you fool. its to minimise collateral damage. again, fool.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

And this sounds reasonable to you? This makes sense to you?

But for some reason you can't seem to believe that Islamic terrorists could have hijacked a couple of planes on a suicide mission - that scenario, to you, is beyond the pale.

He never debated that, in fact I think he agrees with it.

He is simply just saying that AFTER the terrorists hit the buildings, someone made the decision to "pull it".
And they had charges preplaced and ready to go.

Hey it makes sense to me.
I'd like proof though.

Makes sense to you? top down demolition ?

Not this BS again.

How else do you explain the buildings falling perfectly in their footprint?

The plane damage didn't do it.

I don't believe they rigged it after the plane hit?

Had to be pre-staged.

But who pushed the button?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Not this BS again.

Just take a good whiff so you remember that smell for next time its brought up.



I wonder if Shadow Herder will ever supply those building codes they said a few posts up which was about 3 years ago.

a reply to: jjkenobi

But who pushed the button?

It was the Chemical Brothers and they even made a track about it called "Galvanize"

How else do you explain the buildings falling perfectly in their footprint?

No one can,

They didn't like other controlled demo's do.

Care to try?

How were numerous building around the collapse damaged and later had to be taken down as well due to the amount of damage suffered?

a reply to: jjkenobi

If that was the case the charges should have sympathetically detonated when the planes hit the towers causing them to immediately collapse.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Do you normally respond to posts from 8 years ago?

My post here isn't relevant to my life anymore. I'm sorry it is relevant to yours.

originally posted by: GenRadek
Geeze, if it was pre-wired for demolition for "safety" and avoidance of collateral damage, I'd say it was a pretty crappy job then.

Really? I'd say it was pretty effective at bringing the buildings down.

originally posted by: GenRadek
Gee I dont think the Deutsche Bank Building was suppose to get destroyed. Or Fritterman Hall. Or WTC 3 - 6.
Or damage done to the Verizon Building, Post Office, 90 West Street, or the rest of the surrounding buildings?

The Deutsche Bank Building was not destroyed. It was damaged. Same for the others you list. So much so that they had to be written off and demolished. So your argument has no weight because it is based upon exaggeration.

originally posted by: GenRadek
But dont take my word for it:

www.fema.gov...

Yes we are to believe the WTC were brought down into their footprints. Sorry folks, but that simply is not true. The WTC were not demoed and they sure as hell did not fall into their footprints.

WTC1 and WTC2 were not conventional controlled demolitions (floors had to fall from the top, not from the bottom, so whether they fell into their footprints is irrelevant and cannot be used as an argument against controlled demolition. Apart from the debris flung out horizontally by the demolition charges, the floors fell vertically, exhibiting no pancake effect that would have resulted if the contents of each floor had merely dropped, instead of being turned mostly to dust by all the high-powered explosions that are CLEARLY visible when the videos of the towers being blown up are viewed in slow motion.

originally posted by: GenRadek

The ignorance! It BURNS!!

Ignorance? Nah! It is just people like you who cannot argue logically that muddy the waters of debate.