New theory on 9/11 "Controlled Demolition"

[ANTIMONITOR]

I was listening to one of the Paracast episodes that had Ken Thomas on it, and the guys were discussing 9/11 conspiracy. This conspiracy is something that wormed its way into my head a great deal in the past few years. Recently I had to back off of it, because honestly, it is a really depressing topic and there have been no significant developments in quite a while to my knowledge.

Anyway, listening to the discussion caused something to gel in my mind. While I think there is plenty of AT LEAST circumstantial (if not direct) evidence indicating conspiracy/cover-up in 9/11 involving people beyond the alleged hijackers, one aspect has always bothered me: the assertions of controlled demolition in the 3 towers.

While, there have been plenty of observations and studies regarding everything from thermate residue in the rubble, to witness testimony regarding numerous explosions, to all the infamous videos showing what appear to be squibs exploding just before and during the collapse I still am not 100% convinced that the Controlled Demolition theory holds water. I suppose part of me just cannot accept the sheer amount of work and labor that would be involved in wiring ANY building, much less buildings of that size with whatever type of explosives that are the flavor-of-the-month (i.e., thermate, mini-nukes, phasers, death star lasers, etc.) and remaining innocuous. While there are reports of bomb-sniffing security dogs being absent for two weeks prior, there has never been anyone that said, "Wow, there were all these maintenance guys in the building plowing through walls and panels to access god-knows-what!"

I guess my point, or rather the question that I posit, is this: Is it possible that such buildings are, as a standard, wired at least partially for demolition as a matter of course in construction. The idea being that maybe these buildings are prepped for an eventual demo, maybe for some future time that they become obsolete they are already and don't require extra expense to plant squibs after the fact.

The scenario then becomes that when the planes hit the buildings, the fuel/inferno sets off the chain of squibs not a villain pushing a button. In response to why the government wouldn't just cop to the fact that some building are pre-wired, thus explaining a fishy collapse, perhaps so many major/large buildings are so wired that it might cause a panic amongst those that live and work in and around those buildings.

What do you think? This is just shoot-for-the-moon speculation, of course, but at least as a layman it seems plausible to me. Any engineers out there that may be able to comment on this?

 

[Gil Bavel]

I'm not an engineer, but I've done quite a bit of research on this topic.

Actually, people that worked in the towers did report workers doing widespread "renovation" work that was unannounced and looked suspicious. They carried a lot of gear.

The work was done primarily at night and the workers were only seen by people that happened to be there when they normally wouldn't have been, but they were pre-screened by security (Marvin Bush).

This is all detailed in David Ray Griffin's work.

Three skyscrapers (one not hit by a plane) can't fall into their own footprint, neatly, without disturbing any buildings around them, without controlled demo. They would have taken out half of Southern Manhattan.

Also, according to Whitley Streiber, who was initially totally opposed to the "inside job" thesis, he interviewed somebody in WTC 7 for a book he was writing, and was told that the building was wired when it was built (or sometime thereafter) on purpose because there was so much alphabet agency presence there. There were CIA, NSA and NYC intelligence HQ in that building, and if there were to be a hostage situation, they wanted to be able to tell the "terrorists" that they could blow the building at any time, so they didn't have to negotiate, they could call their bluff with impunity.

If you take into account the fact that Larry Silverstein had just leased the complex slightly beforehand and purchased double indemnity insurance for terrorist attack, the chances of this being accidental melt away, like thermate.

Add that to PNAC's "We have to have a new Pearl Harbor" comment from the 1999 document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", it becomes plain to anyone without bias that this was a precursor to the NeoCons' plans to control not only the Middle East, but the oil pipline areas in Kazakhstan and the poppy-rich areas in Afghanistan that fund most of the black budget operations of the DOD, much like Iran-Contra did in the 80s.

Government does this sort of thing all the time.

Plans to take control of Iraq as far back as 1998 by those that were eventually appointed to be part of the Bush Administration can be found here:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once you read it, it becomes obvious to anyone without bias that this was planned long before Bush was selected President.

There is unbelievable precedent for false flag terrorism before 9/11, including the now declassified ), The U.S.S. Maine, The U.S.S. Liberty, and there is evidence that at least ten wars were the result of false flag operations:

History of American false flag operations

This is nothing new. There were off-the-shelf technologies that were able to remote-control fly commercial (or military) aircraft into buildings while making extremely difficult manuevers over 500 miles an hour, but most top gun pilots admit that it would be nearly impossible to execute the kind of flight characteristics seen on 9/11 by the kind of people the government claims hijacked flights 11 and 175, that allegedly leveled the buildings WTC 1 and 2.

There is no evidence that a plane hit the only reinforced side of the Pentagon executing a 300-degree turn at speed despite the fact that dozens of secret service agents confiscated hundreds of CCTV footage from buildings around the Petagon that had cameras facing it, including the famous gas station footage that shows only five frames. What is the government hiding?

There is evidence, however, that the government had the USA PATRIOT Act ready to go long before 9/11 ever took place. Considering everything that's taken place since, the hijacking of the Constitution, the eroding of our personal freedoms, the unwarranted wiretaps on American citizens--and our military--it's obvious to anyone without bias that this was a classical problem-reaction-solution or thesis/antithesis/synthesis operation.

Also, many congresspeople have bemoaned the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act was switched at the last minute and they were pressured to sign it without reading it:

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MdT0RNYoFfM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NV8lkoBxAJA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

There's no question that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that they were a false flag terror event designed to get a largely anti-war population behind the "Bush Doctrine". This is the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States, is responsible for the war on terror and for creating a great many more terrorists than existed beforehand, and is also responsible for our current economic crisis.

We can't spend trillions of dollars a year in an unending war on a stateless enemy without a face without having to pay the consequences. Bush said long ago in response to a question about Bin Laden that "He's not a priority. I don't spend too much time thinking about him". There were no WMD in Iraq, they concocted fake evidence and forced the most trusted member of their cabinet, Colin Powell, to hold up a vail of anthrax (they still haven't solved that... who sent the anthrax?) and point to "mobile weapons labs" and state that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United Sates.

This was all lies.

As Bob Woodward said on NPR in 2005, "The question is, do we want secret government, or not?"

This, by the way, is NOT a partisan issue. Although Cheney and the other NeoCons concocted much of the call to war, and while it's true that Cheney Considered a Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them, President Bill Clinton was not only for the war in Iraq at the time, but supported the "Iraq Liberation Act", an initiative supporting it while he was still President.

If you are willing to set aside your preconceptions, and are willing to cede that they may be misconceptons, and do your homework, do some research, you will find, that 19 mostly-Saudis, taking orders from a diabetic in a cave could not have pulled this off without considerable help from the United States governemnt and military.

UFO enthusiats, of all people, know that governments can, and do keep secrets. The Manhattan Project, for instance.

Oh, and don't even get me started on Dick Cheney's wresting control of the order to shoot-down wayward aircraft away from the Secretary of Defense, and put it in the hands of the Vice President. His stand-down order to NORAD alone is enough to make anyone without bias think twice about this whole thing.

This footage, Norman Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission (about as effective as the Warren Commission) is possibly the most dammning evidence of all:

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlM8Sui6-X0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

So many wargames were scheduled for the same time and day as the 9/11 attacks, and coincidentally happened to be about commercial planes being used as weapons to be flown into the WTC towers that the chances of this happening simultaneously without foreknowledge are beyond astronomical.

 

[David Biedny]

Sigh.

If you want to make the argument that Bush and his cabal knew about the impending attack, and did nothing to stop it, I'm there with you.

If you want to claim that the towers were brought down via a planned controlled demolition, that holograms were what hit the towers, that the people in those planes who died are actually alive somewhere in the midwest, well kids, you're out of your minds. Seriously. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, with water and everything.

dB

 

[Gil Bavel]

Sigh.

If you want to make the argument that Bush and his cabal knew about the impending attack, and did nothing to stop it, I'm there with you.

If you want to claim that the towers were brought down via a planned controlled demolition, that holograms were what hit the towers, that the people in those planes who died are actually alive somewhere in the midwest, well kids, you're out of your minds. Seriously. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, with water and everything.

dB

No, no holograms, no space beams. No mirrors, no Photoshop.

 

[pixelsmith]

bush said as he was walking into the school to read a book to the kids he saw on a tv the first plane hit the WTC. the first plane hitting the tower was not televised until the following day.

 

[pixelsmith]

even a retarded child of 4 can tell the 3 WTC buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion.

 

[David Biedny]

even a retarded child of 4 can tell the 3 WTC buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion.

Wow, there's the holiday spirit. I'm a retarded 4 year old. Thanks, faceless, nameless dweeb on the Internet. Sorry Santa peed on your face, otherwise I'd give you a lollipop. Prick.

dB

 

[Gil Bavel]

I still have questions.

I don't know what happened to the passengers, although some claim that planes were landed in Cleveland and passengers disembarked there--and this would account for some "missing time" the planes had during these long time periods while their transponders were off--but if we're willing to acknowledge that the government was okay with offing 3,000 civilian victims (not to mention 4,500 military deaths and 28,000 non-fatal casualties in Iraq), what's another 47 people on a plane? They may have been taken out and shot, and buried in a mass grave, Gestapo-style.

God, I hope not, but this administration has proved that they will do whatever it takes to advance their agenda. It's entirely possible they're considered "collateral damage".

I don't know. But I will say that Occam's razor says that buildings do not neatly fall into their own footprints because they were hit by planes (well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad), whose fuel (kerosene) vaporized instantly on contact.

When the WTC towers fell, they were burning black smoke. Black smoke is indicative of a fire that is about to go out. While the furniture and contents were alight, right after the impacts, the smoke was white. By the way, the WTC towers were covered in asbestos, which is an excellent fire repellent, but the job of removing it (which had been ordered) was more expensive than the net worth of the buildings (I again refer to David Ray Griffin's exhaustive research) to clean and replace.

These buildings, frankly, had outlasted their warranty period, and Larry Silverstien made 7.7 BILLION dollars off of their destruction and is appealing for more.

 

[Gareth]

David I agree with all you said. The claims people like John Lear make that the people that died that day are ALIVE somewhere is fucking disrespectful.

But what about WTC7? That looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition right?

 

[pixelsmith]

dB i did not call you a retarded child of 4. you are one of my heros in the digital field as well as the paranormal field. if you took it personally, lighten the fuck up.
buildings do not fall into their own footprint from office fires. WTC7 was a re enforced bunker style building that NIST says fell due to one column that failed from office fires.
(NIST's 5th revision) i have researched 9/11 since the day it happened. WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell due to controlled demolitions.

 

[Tommy Allison]

If every skyscraper could be destroyed by an airplane, and have it fall on its footprint, demolition companies would simply crash planes into buildings rather than take 3 to 6 months engineering a demolition.

I am of the mind that planes hit the WTC, but I do not believe that they were the cause of their collapse, because had the damage been truly catastrophic to where the building would have collapsed, it would have collapsed almost instantly.

Steel is unforgiving, an aluminum airplane fuselage is not. They break very easily, and if you were to take and look at how the WTC was constructed, you all would understand how farcical it is, to believe ANY aircraft could have brought down either tower, or destroyed the pentagon.

There are many questions regarding the pentagon as well that I still can't understand. Especially when the lawn was pristine.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Wow, there's the holiday spirit. I'm a retarded 4 year old. Thanks, faceless, nameless dweeb on the Internet. Sorry Santa peed on your face, otherwise I'd give you a lollipop. Prick.

dB

Hey, hey David!! Spit in his eye and charge him for an eyewash!

 

[ANTIMONITOR]

Thanks for all the input everybody... My theory, as speculative as it may have been, was simply to try to rectify the apparent evidence for controlled demolitions without the need for the enormous conspiracy to become even more intricate and planned. Essentially, I have always felt that the buildings falling and compounding the severity of the attack was a totally unforseen occurance to WHOMEVER is involved in these atrocities.

The buildings falling, via ANY method by the way, do not absolve anyone of a crime.

 

[pixelsmith]

i have torn buildings down. i know what it takes. 1&2 were designed to withstand an impact from an airliner. 7 was re engineered and reinforced as a bunker style building within a building for giuliani's command center (which he fled from after being told the building was being "pulled") . i also forge my own damascus steel and know quite a bit about steel, melting points of steel, fires, temperatures of fires by their color, etc etc. i also know who was involved with the security of the WTC up to 9/10 (Marvin Bush). i also know 3 years prior to 9/11 a total rewiring of the towers was done for "internet upgrades". i also know of the many unusual power downs in the weeks and days prior to 9/11. i also know there were explosions in the basements and main floors before the towers fell. buildings 5 & 6 had lots more damage to them yet they stood fine and never fell. i also know jet fuel and office fires can NOT produce MOLTEN IRON 110 stories down that stayed molten for 3 weeks. absolutely positively impossible for that to happen.

 

[David Biedny]

If every skyscraper could be destroyed by an airplane, and have it fall on its footprint, demolition companies would simply crash planes into buildings rather than take 3 to 6 months engineering a demolition.

I am of the mind that planes hit the WTC, but I do not believe that they were the cause of their collapse, because had the damage been truly catastrophic to where the building would have collapsed, it would have collapsed almost instantly.

Steel is unforgiving, an aluminum airplane fuselage is not. They break very easily, and if you were to take and look at how the WTC was constructed, you all would understand how farcical it is, to believe ANY aircraft could have brought down either tower, or destroyed the pentagon.

There are many questions regarding the pentagon as well that I still can't understand. Especially when the lawn was pristine.

Why would the buildings have fallen instantly? Sorry, but the combination of the fire, the burning furniture, the structural damage, the enormous weight of the portion of the buildings on top of the impact areas, all adds up to what I saw play out on TV. You know why the buildings fell straight down? Gravity. Without some enormous external tangential, vectorial force pushing the buildings to the side while they were falling, it makes total sense that they would fall straight down. When a building is demolished, the demo team needs to explode things in a certain order, indeed, in order to totally control the fall, and part of it is because those buildings are not as tall, do not weigh as much as the Trade Centers. I saw a doc on some cable channel, and they played out the whole situation, and it made good sense to me. Now, I'll NOT say the same thing for WTC 7 - I agree that there's something totally fishy about that fall, but the towers, well, looks to me like what happened makes physical sense. I'll feely admit, I'm not a skyscraper demolition expert, and I'll promise you that NO ONE HERE is as well.

Like I said, I strongly suspect that the Bushies knew something was coming, and didn't try to stop it. I agree that they're capable of much evil, but taking people off a commercial plane, American citizens, and shooting them all in the head? I call bullshit on this. I'm as paranoid as the next guy, maybe even a wee bit more, but this is just over the edge.

Anyway, I'll refrain from adding anything more to this thread. I know that those of you who want to think that Bush - someone I've called a murderer, war criminal, drug addict, lush, clueless asshole - was somehow in charge of putting together all of 9.11, will continue to do so, but I think you're just wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I'll convince no one of anything, I know, but the deeper you go off the edge, the harder you're going to hit that bottom, when you get there. My head hurts enough as it is.

dB

 

[Gil Bavel]

Oh, and another thing:

No skyscraper built out of reinforced steel and concrete has ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11 despite half a dozen to a dozen buildings that burned for longer, including the Windsor Building in Madrid's business district, which burned for 24 hours before firefighters put it out:

SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES

Sorry, doesn't happen. Not in the real world. You want real physics, real-world examples, there you go. World Trade Center Towers don't fall after burning for about an hour (one guy got new eyeglasses made inbetween when the plane hit, and when the building fell) without some intervening force.

Like, say, explosives.

 

[pixelsmith]

sigh... dB why would you say we think "bush put together ALL of 9/11"? that is pure bullshit and a ridiculous thing to say. so one suggested that at all. geez.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Why would the buildings have fallen instantly? Sorry, but the combination of the fire, the burning furniture, the structural damage, the enormous weight of the portion of the buildings on top of the impact areas, all adds up to what I saw play out on TV. You know why the buildings fell straight down? Gravity. Without some enormous external tangential, vectorial force pushing the buildings to the side while they were falling, it makes total sense that they would fall straight down. When a building is demolished, the demo team needs to explode things in a certain order, indeed, in order to totally control the fall, and part of it is because those buildings are not as tall, do not weigh as much as the Trade Centers. I saw a doc on some cable channel, and they played out the whole situation, and it made good sense to me. Now, I'll NOT say the same thing for WTC 7 - I agree that there's something totally fishy about that fall, but the towers, well, looks to me like what happened makes physical sense. I'll feely admit, I'm not a skyscraper demolition expert, and I'll promise you that NO ONE HERE is as well.

Like I said, I strongly suspect that the Bushies knew something was coming, and didn't try to stop it. I agree that they're capable of much evil, but taking people off a commercial plane, American citizens, and shooting them all in the head? I call bullshit on this. I'm as paranoid as the next guy, maybe even a wee bit more, but this is just over the edge.

Anyway, I'll refrain from adding anything more to this thread. I know that those of you who want to think that Bush - someone I've called a murderer, war criminal, drug addict, lush, clueless asshole - was somehow in charge of putting together all of 9.11, will continue to do so, but I think you're just wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I'll convince no one of anything, I know, but the deeper you go off the edge, the harder you're going to hit that bottom, when you get there. My head hurts enough as it is.

dB

Well, David, I appreciate your post, and your input--but I'm sorry to see that you now consider yourself out of the game, especially because we now lose the benefit of your intelligence and expertise. We will miss it. And, as much as I respect your opinion, there is a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth that do know a lot more than you or I about vectoral force and gravity stress on buildings.

AE911Truth

Please at least check it out--now that you're out of the fray, it will inform you by leaps and bounds.

Those documentaries you've seen on cable TV explain that demolition teams take weeks to carefully plant demolition charges (Thermate) because it it goes one scintilla wrong, the building doesn't fall into its own footprint and destroys other buildings nearby. It's an extremely delicate operation, takes a lot of planning (yes, I realize I'm damning myself here) and preparation. Many explosives and demolition experts have gone on record, and risked their reputations defending the inside job theory. People with a lot to lose.
Very interestingly, the company that is at the top of their field in building demolition, DMD Demolitions, hasn't said a word.

Building Demolition - Chicago, IL - Building Demolition From DMD Services

Charges must go off in microseconds to bring buildings down into their own footprints. First, at the bottom, then, nanoseconds later, a few stories up, and so on. This is the ONLY way to bring a building down into its own footprint, and it's so difficult, DMD win almost every contract to do it.

I'm sorry to see you go from this topic--after all, it is under "conspiracy theories", because if people like you would only do their homework, they could stop making uninformed pronouncements, and speak from a place of knowledge--one way or the other.

Most 9/11 "truthers" worth their salt have done hundreds, or at least dozens of hours of study on this subject, and generally know what they're talking about.

But, you're right. If we delved into each and every subject that catches our attention that much, we'd never have time to live a real life.

Right?

 

[Gareth]

I still come back to WTC7.

 

[Gil Bavel]

i have torn buildings down. i know what it takes. 1&2 were designed to withstand an impact from an airliner. 7 was re engineered and reinforced as a bunker style building within a building for giuliani's command center (which he fled from after being told the building was being "pulled") . i also forge my own damascus steel and know quite a bit about steel, melting points of steel, fires, temperatures of fires by their color, etc etc. i also know who was involved with the security of the WTC up to 9/10 (Marvin Bush). i also know 3 years prior to 9/11 a total rewiring of the towers was done for "internet upgrades". i also know of the many unusual power downs in the weeks and days prior to 9/11. i also know there were explosions in the basements and main floors before the towers fell. buildings 5 & 6 had lots more damage to them yet they stood fine and never fell. i also know jet fuel and office fires can NOT produce MOLTEN IRON 110 stories down that stayed molten for 3 weeks. absolutely positively impossible for that to happen.

That's what it was, Internet upgrades. No questions asked.