• 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!!

triforcharity said:
How often were these explosives changed out? You know, since explosives have a shelf life out in the open of about 3 days. Even less in uncontrolled atmospheres??


Why would they even consider this idiotic plan, since, as far as I can tell, it has never happened before......
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm in commercial real estate, namely high-rise buildings.

So tell me bill, where would you place your charges so you'd be able to access them as needed? How would you keep the charges from prematurely exploding from things like RF and microwaves?

We don't need to discuss how this can be kept secret. It can't.
 
McHrozni said:
There is another comment which is supportive to the article.

The other two comments are somewhat questioning of the veracity of the article, one of whom is basing it on the spelling of the word "gage" versus "gauge". Evenly split, overall.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Yes I know that but thats still more than most reactions to truthers claims, most of them say stuff like "thanks, good info" or saying that "yes, we need a new investigation", just supportive stuff like that. etc. But this one actually didnt just say it wasnt likely but implied the writer was lying.

Just more negative reaction than I see most of the time, surprised me is all :)
 
Last edited:
What I also like about this nonsense is that assuming we accept the premise that they would build in a way to demolish the building at some point.... why the heck would you choose a method that would cause the most destruction possible to surrounding buildings!!
 
triforcharity said:
How often were these explosives changed out? You know, since explosives have a shelf life out in the open of about 3 days. Even less in uncontrolled atmospheres??


Why would they even consider this idiotic plan, since, as far as I can tell, it has never happened before......
Click to expand...

It's do to a lack of "Risk vs. Benefit" analysis ability. Any damn fool could tell you putting explosives in a building during construction, for later use 30-50 years later is beyond risky...and dirt dumb.

And considering that integrated circuits would not be available at that time..the remote detonators would be made of discrete electronic components, and be fairly large. They would also need power..batteries are out of the question, so they would have to be wired into the electrical grid of the building. Lord hopes no electrician accidentally energizes those lines.

It's just ridiculous.
 
Edx said:
What I also like about this nonsense is that assuming we accept the premise that they would build in a way to demolish the building at some point.... why the heck would you choose a method that would cause the most destruction possible to surrounding buildings!!
Click to expand...

But didn't you hear? It collapsed into it's own footprint except everywhere it didn't. Of course Truthers have made arguments that being in the footprint = explosive demolition and not being in the footprint = explosive demolition as well.
 
Travis said:
But didn't you hear? It collapsed into it's own footprint except everywhere it didn't. Of course Truthers have made arguments that being in the footprint = explosive demolition and not being in the footprint = explosive demolition as well.
Click to expand...

With all this talk of foot prints it can only be big foot who destroyed everything in a fit of rage. We have two documentaries of big apes in NYC so it is not an unknown phenomenon like a building spontaneously collapsing for the first time ever in the history of the planet.:p
 
Last edited:
Id say any insurance company would have a **** attack if they thought the building was wired with explosives. think of the payout if they went off by accident. Completely nuts as usual.
 
Somehow I always fall in the trap of assuming we're talking to adults, but then I get reminded that some of these truthers really have the minds of 9 year olds.

It's not just political motivations that makes them think this way, they simply don't understand how the world works.
 
BadBoy said:
Id say any insurance company would have a **** attack if they thought the building was wired with explosives. think of the payout if they went off by accident. Completely nuts as usual.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd love to see the premiums on a policy for a building with an actual "self destruct" mechanism in it.
 
Pardalis said:
Somehow I always fall in the trap of assuming we're talking to adults, but then I get reminded that some of these truthers really have the minds of 9 year olds.

It's not just political motivations that makes them think this way, they simply don't understand how the world works.
Click to expand...

Actually, 9-year-olds typically demonstrate a better understanding of reality, Pardalis. 'Truthers' just demonstrate the 9-year-olds' flights of fancy without demonstrating the 9-year-olds' grasp on what is real.

We're dealing with 'Rain Men'.
 
Bill's just a career devil's advocate. It ceased being funny a while ago.
 
Travis said:
But didn't you hear? It collapsed into it's own footprint except everywhere it didn't. Of course Truthers have made arguments that being in the footprint = explosive demolition and not being in the footprint = explosive demolition as well.
Click to expand...

I have a comic strip about that.

cdboth.png
 
McHrozni said:
Hmmm. You think?
...Sometimes these explosive devices can be triggered by accident. Although it was a faulty o-ring in one of the two attached solid fuel rockets that was responsible for the Challenger explosion, it was, in my opinion, the self-destruct system that accidentally triggered which destroyed the space shuttle so completely and the reason for the loss of the seven astronauts. The two seemingly intact solid fuel rockets continued to fly erratically on their own for nearly half a minute before they were destroyed too after their self-destruct system was triggered from the ground.
Click to expand...
Even that's wrong. There's no range safety ordnance on the Orbiter; it's only on the SRMs. They simply cut the boosters into pieces. Challenger was destroyed by the explosion of the fuel tank and resulting aerodynamic stress.

There's a little indicator on the flight deck panel that says "RANGE SAFE ARM", which basically says, "Kiss your [behind] goodbye." I've seen it being tested while stacked on the pad. The thing that made me nervous is that the KSC techs couldn't agree on what kept the test from being the real thing.

All of which goes to show that, of course, quarter-mile skyscrapers are routinely constructed with integral demolition charges and then topped with powerful radio antennae.
 
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...

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.
 
Last edited:
It's in the Eurocodes. C4 explosive. We just keep it secret from you all. Do you really think that when we talk about plastic analysis of structures that we're talking about all those bending moments and hinges and everything?
 
jaydeehess said:
Thus the senario is illogical.
Click to expand...



Add to that: even if it was part of the plan to design the buildings with their eventual CD in mind, why would that require pre-placed explosives and wiring?

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?

Why would this scenario have required the explosives to be built-in? Unsafe, prone to degradation over time, and completely unnecessary for an actual demolition plan.
 
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.......
 
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