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

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Yes, the buildings were pre-rigged with explosives.

It wasn't for safety.

They blew em for up dramatic value and for wiping out the evidence and several other convenient bonusses.

He is saying the buildings were pre rigged since the 90s and the explosives maintained after their shelf life expired for security reasons, to prevent the buildings from toppling over or any such if they cant be saved. What is the source of this claim?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What I'd like to know is, why is it that there was NO, repeat, NO steel found during the cleanup of ground zero that showed any of the blatant signs of demolitions? If bombs genuinely destroy the support columbs it'd leave blatantly blatant evidence behind. There were many, many photos taken of the site during the cleanup and if even ONE photo existed of steel shattered by explosives you conspiracy people would be all over it like Rosie O'Donnel on a chocolate cake.

Unless you want to accuse the steel workers, NYPD, and NYFD at ground zero of either a) being as thoroughly as stupid as a bag of hammers who wouldn't recognize the blatant signs of sabotage everywhere, and/or b)being involved in the conspiracy and coverup themselves...and I don't think even you conspiracy people have the cojones to go there...you're barking up the wrong tree here. You constantly accuse the 9/11 commission report of having inconsistancies and yet you introduce all these goofy alternative claims which have even more inconsistancies.

Would you mind terribly explaining yourselves?

Cookie cutter signs of steels cut with oxyacetylene and thermal lances (we do agree here Dave that these were the only tools used for cutting the steels at ground zero, yes?), notice the tell tale signs....

1). Slag deposits all around the 4 edges of the steels.

2). Scorch marks all around the 4 edges.

3). Uneven edges, due to the cutting.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f8df30fca6cf.jpg[/atsimg]

There are 100`s upon 100`s of pictures showing the core beams ends, notice how neat these cuts are, and no tell tale signs whatsoever of torch cutting, however, pay careful attention to the two holes and the charring around these.......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cbd75fa42418.jpg[/atsimg]

I do believe you also asked for evidence of a shattered beam due to explosives, explain the damage of this beam, and the picture above with the guy sitting on a beam, look at the beam nearest his head.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fc62f3818a7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Seventh


Well, just as information, when it comes to wrecking or demolition most contractors will use propane, not acytelne. Its much cheaper and good enough for rough cutting. Those "lances" are just wrecking torches. They're longer so the welder can stay farther away from what they're cutting, just in case.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Seventh

 

Well, just as information, when it comes to wrecking or demolition most contractors will use propane, not acytelne. Its much cheaper and good enough for rough cutting. Those "lances" are just wrecking torches. They're longer so the welder can stay farther away from what they're cutting, just in case.

There are a few ways to save cash when cutting steels, another is using an excavator when cutting upright steels, to snap the steel thus preventing the need to cut it all the way around, but, propane would still have the same affects .

i had been thinking about how they could've demo'd the buildings and i found some other information that needs to be addressed before i can consider that the core being severed in key spots actually caused the collapse......

in these videos it shows the core still standing after the collapse, then, after the collapse, the core collapses in on itself........it's just too weird......

reply to post by plube


i dont hold to much weight in the original story ,
it was a spin off that took a life of its own ,

call it a gut feelin´

reply to post by zerbot565


I think you hit nail on head, all we can really go for is theories and gut feelings. but sometimes its those feelings that can lend a hand to decoding a mystery. I really hope one day we know the full truth, but I doubt anyone would believe it.

I have a thread which I claim they knocked the building down to save lives. Thats a gut feeling i have, can I prove it probably not. Does it seem likely yes, but even if gov came out and said hey guys your theory is right, or others guy, or others... half of us will never believe it. Because the truth sometimes is hard to swallow once we have our own minds set to a story.

You need proof for anyone to believe such a statement.

If this were true, you could find a company that did the work, people that worked for the company and most likely pictures of the installed explosives.

Why would anyone believe this?

can someone explain the columns still standing after the collapse?

reply to post by patternfinder


Pattern, I posted to you your answers on a previous thread, including the core columns. Please take a look:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is pretty cool how when you sit back and take a look at the situation, it does really seem like a bad way to guard the american public, but gov is known for idiotic mistakes, I am sure they didn't intend 911 to turn out to be a conspiracy field day.

Apparently, prior to posting this ridiculous theory, the OP didn't consider the astronomical insurance liability issues that would exist in allowing innocent people to conduct their daily work in a building that is pre-rigged with explosives that could potentially detonate for any number of reasons when they aren't supposed to. Not only that, but I have to wonder how many people would even be willing to work in a building pre-rigged with explosives in the first place? I doubt very many....if ANY at all.

This sounds like a feeble attempt to cover Silverstein's ass after he accidentally let the cat out of the bag with his "we decided to pull it" comment.

Laughable.

reply to post by NightGypsy


The op has many points, and there is no insurance liability issues in a national security or classified project bud.


The only insane theory is those posted by conspiracy theorists to include, bin laden frozen, bin laden cia robot, cia, bush, pentagon, world trade center people all involved in a mega conspiracy.

Common now, this ops theory is right on target with reality and not elements of imagination like 5000 people in on a conspiracy theory in 4 countries...

Originally posted by Chesster
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

Common now, this ops theory is right on target with reality and not elements of imagination like 5000 people in on a conspiracy theory in 4 countries...

This is closer to the truth than most of you will ever know.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Indeed brother, I do see the logic. Afterall I came to this same conclusion after 10 years of being fed lies, and theories of outlandish proportions.

THe simplest model is the correct one. As you can see by my little thread essay over where my thread is, I came to it via thinking, you actually followed the evidence.

I must bow to your logic and understanding. This op is amazing.

I'm sorry but can someone repost the link if there is one to this story? I don't want to go through 8 pages of threads and it should have been posted on the opening post.

It is an interesting theory if it were true and it would explain a lot, but with no link I have to reserve my judgment.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

This is closer to the truth than most of you will ever know.

REALLY? Is this why you have yet to provide a reliable source for this claim of yours?

reply to post by Chesster

The only insane theory is those posted by conspiracy theorists to include, bin laden frozen, bin laden cia robot, cia, bush, pentagon, world trade center people all involved in a mega conspiracy.

You might want to add holographic planes and "no victims" to your list of insane conspiracy theories as well. Yes, there are many ridiculous theories being made all over the place with respect to 9/11. And this theory, my friend, is one of them simply because it implies the buildings have been rigged with bombs since the first attack on the WTC in the 90's. If the OP suggested it was rigged with explosives within a closer time frame of 9/11, then it would be more believable. Obviously it was rigged for a demolition...., but it is illogical to conclude that the owner(s) would rig it without any particular reason......"for safety precautions" is beyond lame....it is asinine.

Originally posted by Chesster
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Indeed brother, I do see the logic. Afterall I came to this same conclusion after 10 years of being fed lies, and theories of outlandish proportions.

THe simplest model is the correct one. As you can see by my little thread essay over where my thread is, I came to it via thinking, you actually followed the evidence.

I must bow to your logic and understanding. This op is amazing.

Thank you very much but it was not I that 'thought' of it. It is part of the safety precautions that were put into play.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


www.abovetopsecret.com...


figured you might enjoy this video, it is penn and teller discussing the truthers and presenting evidence to counteract some of the more outlandish theories.