• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Explosives built into WTC!!

Architect said:
My - possibly eroneous - understanding is that, at the height of the Cold War, new German bridges on key routes were built with just such places. But no explosives.

Just sayin.......
Click to expand...

I believe the Swiss had and may still have similar prepared defenses.
 
jaydeehess said:
It might seem to until one examines all the details of such a senario which would make it even more dangerous than the 'problem' it is supposed to help fix. Let's try one avenue along this line then shall we Bill.

One can look at this senario from the POV of it actually having been in place for the purposes you outline, for safety in the event the a toppling collapse is determined to be imminemt so this is implemented to alleviate the problem of the building toppling onto surrounding structures.

In that event if the structure is not explosively demolished the tower (or upper portion of a tower) will go in ONE direction and impact only those structures in that direction. People in the tower (or at least the upper portion of the tower) still basically all die.
Now if the supposedly installed-during-construction explosives were utilised on 9/11 they caused a collapse that impacted all structures within a few hundred feet. Every one of the WTC complex structures was damaged beyond repair as was the Banker's Trust building. We will leave out WTC 7's impact on Fitterman Hall, but in your senario WTC 7 has been demolished for the same reason that #1&2 have been which means that WTC 7 was damaged to the point that it was decided that to be safe it should also be demolished.

Clearly the destruction wrought by bringing down the towers in such a fashion is at the very least as bad as it would have been had they merely toppled over.

Thus the senario is illogical.
Click to expand...

If you read my original post you should see that I said that the explosives could be 'plugged in' at the time of a supposed collapse event. This does not include having the explosives in place at any other time. The wiring could be there permanently of course


Perhaps ypu didn't understand or perhaps yu were doing the debunker twostep but hopefully this will clear up any confusion.
 
bill smith said:
I don't claim that this is what happened on 9/11 perticularly but I do think this , or a variation on this might well have been considered by isurance companies in the skyscraper business. It does have a certain amount of logic going for it.
Click to expand...
So according to your logic, to make a building safer, you fill it with explosives. ... mmmm ...

.....

... mmm ... you did say logic?

Hans
 
Horatius said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply provide places, pre-calculated, to put the explosives? A little sign on each column, "Bomb goes here---->", so there would be no need to figure it all out after 30-50 years, when building plans may have been lost?

.
Click to expand...

IIRC, explosive demo was pretty much in its infancy when the towers were built, and lsc's came much later?

Even at that, IMHO, any engineer would recognize that providing these "places" would be a stupid exercise, since he/she would also recognize that the technology/knowledge about cd'ing buildings would radically increase during the expected lifespan of said building.

So I don't even see that as a reasonable alternative.

Quit entertaining the bs troll.

There were no explosives. There weren't any pre-determined "places".

Just suggesting this will result in more trolling from the bs idiot.
 
Seymour Butz said:
IIRC, explosive demo was pretty much in its infancy when the towers were built, and lsc's came much later?

Even at that, IMHO, any engineer would recognize that providing these "places" would be a stupid exercise, since he/she would also recognize that the technology/knowledge about cd'ing buildings would radically increase during the expected lifespan of said building.

So I don't even see that as a reasonable alternative.

Quit entertaining the bs troll.

There were no explosives. There weren't any pre-determined "places".

Just suggesting this will result in more trolling from the bs idiot.
Click to expand...

But the idea of people running into a blazing inferno carrying explosives to plug into prewired outlets is just so NWO.

The firefighters run out the NWO run in...carrying explosives.

Where does America get such men as these? (he says in wonder standing in front of an American flag)
 
tsig said:
But the idea of people running into a blazing inferno carrying explosives to plug into prewired outlets is just so NWO.

The firefighters run out the NWO run in...carrying explosives.

Where does America get such men as these? (he says in wonder standing in front of an American flag)
Click to expand...

This is really no biggie for me but I must say that you guys all seem to be highly captivated by the idea. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If you read my original post you should see that I said that the explosives could be 'plugged in' at the time of a supposed collapse event. This does not include having the explosives in place at any other time. The wiring could be there permanently of course


Perhaps ypu didn't understand or perhaps yu were doing the debunker twostep but hopefully this will clear up any confusion.
Click to expand...

Perehaps you'd care to re-read my post and consider your detail to the senario. It still fits and still makes such a senario illogical BECAUSE the damage wrought was as bad or worse than the damage that would occur if the buildings were allowed to topple.

It has also been brought up that even in structures which are designed to be demolished quickly for war planning do not have wiring installed, or detonators or explosives, just places to put them.
With that in mind you still contend that someone might think its a good idea to prewire an office building when they don't even do this in war planning?
 
Edited for bill:

One can look at this senario from the POV of it actually having been in place for the purposes you outline, for safety in the event the a toppling collapse is determined to be imminemt so this is implemented to alleviate the problem of the building toppling onto surrounding structures.

In that event if the structure is not explosively demolished the tower (or upper portion of a tower) will go in ONE direction and impact only those structures in that direction. People in the tower (or at least the upper portion of the tower) still basically all die.
Now if the supposedly installed-during-construction pre-wiring was utilised on 9/11 and explosives quickly installed, it caused a collapse that impacted all structures within a few hundred feet. Every one of the WTC complex structures was damaged beyond repair as was the Banker's Trust building. We will leave out WTC 7's impact on Fitterman Hall, but in your senario WTC 7 has been demolished for the same reason that #1&2 have been which means that WTC 7 was damaged to the point that it was decided that to be safe it should also be demolished.

Clearly the destruction wrought by bringing down the towers in such a fashion is at the very least as bad as it would have been had they merely toppled over.

Thus the senario is illogical.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
This is really no biggie for me but I must say that you guys all seem to be highly captivated by the idea. Interesting.
Click to expand...

People are also captivated by the man on the corner who drinks his own urine while arguing with the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
 
Bill Smith- how many Zionist Jews do you think it took to line the WTC steel with long-life explosive material?
 
If there were explosives built into the WTC's, then I'm pretty sure those suckers would've detonated sometime in the 80's. A spark or static electricity would've set them off.
 
parky76 said:
Bill Smith- how many Zionist Jews do you think it took to line the WTC steel with long-life explosive material?
Click to expand...

The same amount it takes them to screw in a light bulb: 1 to screw in the bulb, and 10,000 to set in motion a hundreds of years long conspiracy to control the light bulb market and deny them to deserving Christians and Muslims.
 
parky76 said:
Bill Smith- how many Zionist Jews do you think it took to line the WTC steel with long-life explosive material?
Click to expand...

Let's give ol' Bill some credit as he actually backs away from the explosives-loaded-during-construction idea and instead wants only the wiring done and locations prepared during construction. (in complete secrecy of course) This of course then requires a cadre of guys with bigger balls than brains to go into the structure while it burns and load in these explosives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom