[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

^^^egggggsactly.

[Omen]

To expand on the hypothesis that cotrolled demolition finished off the twin towers:

Imagine Larry Silverstein knew in advance of the attack. 2 planes hit the towers and leav them standing in a perilous state. What then? They'd be too dangerous to go near, and almost impossible to demolish.

So, imagine he had them wired for deolition to avoid having 2 wrecked buildings hanging in the air. The buildings were constructed of an extremely strong core connected to the outer walls by steel beams which were the floors. To demolish them you'd just need access to the core. Prefabricate the explosives in a kind of loom to save time, and them install them in the core, where the public or employees don't have access.

What I have always found remarkable is how the antennae on top fell first, like the core was giving way first. Also remarkable was the complete disintegration of the core, which was extremely strong and where the structural strengh of the buildings lay.

Just a theory. A srtetch of the imagination, but until you explore ideas you can't debunk them.

[spitfire]

I've never been interested in conspiracy theories before but i must say,i'm enjoying this thread.

[lostalex]

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

The strenght of the building was in the core. The construction of each floor was analogous to a bicycle wheel - core/hub, floors/spokes, external walls/rim. One on top of another. Take down the core/hub, then the entire falls. Access to the core I presume was prohibitted to maintenance men only, under control of the landlord, Larry Silverstein.

The charges could have been prefabricated in a kind of loom and installed secretly in the core, where noone is allowed access. Also, no safety precautions necessary to prevent debris being catapulted out and damaging the surrounding buildings.

There are people who are still claiming there were traces of the explosive thermite in the rubble, and an organisation called Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth that won't go away until there is an investigation.

[lostalex]

Omen, what do you think happened on flight 93? do you also dispute the official story of the passengers fighting back on Flight 93?

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Omen, what do you think happened on flight 93? do you also dispute the official story of the passengers fighting back on Flight 93?

The hypothesis I'm exploring here does not question who did the hijacking, just whether there was foreknowledge, and what steps were/were not taken in advance of it.

[lostalex]

So do you believe the story of flight 93 (as we all know it) is accurate?

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

So do you believe the story of flight 93 (as we all know it) is accurate?

No reason to doubt it. Was that the one that flew into the Pentagon?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omen

No reason to doubt it. Was that the one that flew into the Pentagon?

No, the one that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, after the passengers fought back.
The one that was assumed to be targeting eigther the White House or the Capitol building.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

No, the one that crashed in a field in Pennslyvania, after the passengers fought back.
The one that was assumed to be targeting eigther the White House or the Capitol building.

I don't know. Be something if it was shot down. I mean, if the only one the air force shot down was the one going for the WH. But I don't know.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omen

I don't know. Be something if it was shot down. I mean, if the only one the air force shot down was the one going for the WH. But I don't know.

No one was at the White House though. Bushie was on Air Force One, and Cheney and Condi were in the bunker. Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon, and they didn't shoot that one down...

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

No one was at the White House though. Bushie was on Air Force One, and Cheney and Condi were in the bunker. Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon, and they didn't shoot that one down...

True. Condi thought it was shot down at first, I saw her saying that.

I'd love to understand the mechanics of how the cores of the 2 towers disintegrated, right into a crater in the ground, while 10 - 20 stories of the external wall remained grotesquely standing. (I studied a little how they were built).

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

My point is predicated that they would be impossible or near impossible to demolish after. Also, there was the possibility the centre of gravity may have shifted causing the towers to fall on their sides.

The question of mass murder is a doozy alright, but say the timing of the attack was unknown, so maybe there was a 50/50 chance the workers would be at home instead of at work. BUt I concede it is a tough one to answer, but I'm reminded of the Israeli attack on the US naval boats off Israel and how that nearly precipitated a nuclear strike on Cairo, and I wonder what cost is too high if this was indeed a Machaevellian scheme to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Omen]

Oh, and remember that there was an attack in 1993 which went undetected which had it suceeded would have taken the buildings down. So saying you couldn't, with access to the core, do this unnoticed I'm not sure holds water.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

My point is predicated that they would be impossible or near impossible to demolish after. Also, there was the possibility the centre of gravity may have shifted causing the towers to fall on their sides.

The question of mass murder is a doozy alright, but say the timing of the attack was unknown, so maybe there was a 50/50 chance the workers would be at home instead of at work. BUt I concede it is a tough one to answer, but I'm reminded of the Israeli attack on the US naval boats off Israel and how that nearly precipitated a nuclear strike on Cairo, and I wonder what cost is too high if this was indeed a Machaevellian scheme to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well for starters, knowing a crime is going to be committed and failing to act to prevent it is a crime.

As it was an act of mass murder that was then used as an excuse to invade another country. If you get found out, you are looking at charges of treason and mass murder, Aiding and abetting terrorist actions.

Thats several death penalties itself, do you honestly think those involved in the conspiracy would go for it?

Then you have not only the leaders but also the workmen who positioned and possibly detonated the explosives, you reckon all the people involved in the planning and execution of this could cope with the guilt? I suppose you could say that Silverstein bought everyones silence?

They may have carried out the work but do you suppose that someone in the whole scheme wouldnt have come forward by now?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omen

Oh, and remember that there was an attack in 1993 which went undetected which had it suceeded would have taken the buildings down. So saying you couldn't, with access to the core, do this unnoticed I'm not sure holds water.

the attack in '93 was just explosives in a van. Not strategically placed demolitions to implode the whole building. HUGE difference. GIGANTIC difference.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Well for starters, knowing a crime is going to be committed and failing to act to prevent it is a crime.

As it was an act of mass murder that was then used as an excuse to invade another country. If you get found out, you are looking at charges of treason and mass murder, Aiding and abetting terrorist actions.

Thats several death penalties itself, do you honestly think those involved in the conspiracy would go for it?

Then you have not only the leaders but also the workmen who positioned and possibly detinated the explosives, you reckon all the people involved in the planning and execution of this could cope with the guilt? I suppose you could say that Silverstein bought everyones silence?

They may have carried out the work but do you suppose that someone in the whole scheme wouldnt have come forward by now?

They might all be dead.

As for the rest of your post, aside from whoever was responsible for setting the explosives, the others are guilty of doing nothing. There are reports the intelligence community had wind of what was coming, yet didn't do anything.

Saw "The Special Relationship" on BBC2 the other night. Bit near the end with Clinton advising Blair he doesn't want to get into bed with the new Bush administration, saying (more or less) they play dirty.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

the attack in '93 was just explosives in a van. Not strategically placed demolitions to implode the whole building. HUGE difference. GIGANTIC difference.

If you had free unhindered and unnoticed access to the core you could do what you like. Noone who works there would even see you doing whatever you're doing.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

They might all be dead.

As for the rest of your post, aside from whoever was responsible for setting the explosives, the others are guilty of doing nothing. There are reports the intelligence community had wind of what was coming, yet didn't do anything.

Saw "The Special Relationship" on BBC2 the other night. Bit near the end with Clinton advising Blair he doesn't want to get into bed with the new Bush administration, saying (more or less) they play dirty.

The intelligence community had information from unreliable(at that time) sources saying there would be an attack probably hijackings etc.

Because the sources were deemed to be unreliable they werent acted upon correctly. Also the report from a low grade embassy field worker was pretty much put down to being overly cautious.

Yes intelligence assessors kind of screwed up.

As for anyone else aware of the scale of the attack, to know of such a crime and not inform the authorities is a crime, its a form of complicity in the attack and would at least catch an aiding and abetting charge.

Prior knowledge of a crime and failing to inform the relevant authorities is a crime.

As for Bush and Co playing dirty of course they did, look at the way they rigged elections. That doesnt mean they would knowlingly sacrifice thousands of lives in a conspiracy which could not only bring down their own administration but would also sully Americas reputation throughout its allies as well as the rest of the world.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The intelligence community had information from unreliable(at that time) sources saying there would be an attack probably hijackings etc.

Because the sources were deemed to be unreliable they werent acted upon correctly. Also the report from a low grade embassy field worker was pretty much put down to being overly cautious.

Yes intelligence assessors kind of screwed up.

As for anyone else aware of the scale of the attack, to know of such a crime and not inform the authorities is a crime, its a form of complicity in the attack and would at least catch an aiding and abetting charge.

Prior knowledge of a crime and failing to inform the relevant authorities is a crime.

As for Bush and Co playing dirty of course they did, look at the way they rigged elections. That doesnt mean they would knowlingly sacrifice thousands of lives in a conspiracy which could not only bring down their own administration but would also sully Americas reputation throughout its allies as well as the rest of the world.

OK, let's assume the inelligence screwed up. What about the trade in airline stocks? Is that a fallacy? What about Larry Silverstein buying a 99 year lease, closing the deal in July of 2001? He invested $14m only in a $3.5b deal and made c.$500m in the insurance payout. FDNY officers said it looked like a controlled demolition? What about the political capital, the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

There is a body of circumstantial evidence there.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler

This event was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. There's another conspiracy theory, that Roosevelt knew it was coming and let it happen.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

OK, let's assume the inelligence screwed up. What about the trade in airline stocks? Is that a fallacy? What about Larry Silverstein buying a 99 year lease, closing the deal in July of 2001? He invested $14m only in a $3.5b deal and made c.$500m in the insurance payout. FDNY officers said it looked like a controlled demolition? What about the political capital, the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

There is a body of circumstantial evidence there.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. Adolf Hitler

This event was the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century. There's another conspiracy theory, that Roosevelt knew it was coming and let it happen.

No you use of NLP is pathetic. Lets assume it was one big conspiracy and Silverstein got lucky finding out about it. You honestly think out of all those that would need to be involved, not one of them would be sickened by guilt and so overcome by remorse they broke the scandal with overwhelming proof?

You do of course have proof of all those claims as being solely and directly causative to the tragedy? Of course you dont.

Thats what is good about conspiracy theories, and of course the believers in them; you string some real facts with completely bogus stuff and force the 'truth' to fit the conspiracy, ignoring the simple truth. It may have just happened the way it played out to the world with no conspiracy involved.

I have a good one for you, imagine a group of know nothings who think they have real intelligence but who despise the lot life has dealt them, they sit at home looking for some way to commit an act of anarchy, they cant find one, but they do find other sad gets who sit at home pitying themselves and hating their own gvernments administration.

Between them they find little facts that just happen to be so they cook up a theory of the 'system' trying to keep them at heel, trying to force them to stay poor, etc.

All of a sudden there have cooked up a conspiracy for others to jump on and support. Isnt that a conspiracy in itself? Suckering other people who feel the government deliberately keep them in their places?

[Omen]

NLP?

I don't know if the rest of your post was a go at me. I'm only here to amuse myself.

That 9/11 has been used as a causus belli there is absolutely no doubt - the Pearl Harbour of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rest is conjecture and exploring conspiracies. Insults get us nowhere and they're no fun.