I have read that WTC1&2 were closed a week or so before the events for a "structural inspection" where work crews were sent in to inspect the superstructure on multiple floors.

This is documented in 911 Mysteries, in which an IT tech tried to testify to the 9/11 commission but was denied. I think they started installing the demolition wiring in about 1996. But it could have been done in 3 weeks leading up to 9/11, and bombs installed the last week when bomb-sniffing dogs were removed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW1fTltBsxo#t=4m44s

There were 80 elevator mechanics inside the towers on the morning of 9/11. Surely the elevators didn't need too much attention? Maybe the core columns did...

Also, for 7, none of the charges would need to be wired. Wireless detonators have been around for a long time, and the charges could be designed to look like anything.

Actually, 80 doesn't seem like that crazy of a number. These buildings were huge, with a lot of elevators. If one breaks it is going to take a crew of guys to fix it in a timely manner, not just one Roger Work Man. Also consider they were doing routine maintenance everyday. Then you have to figure a portion of that 80 were in some sort of supervising/administrative positions. Just think of how many cleaning people, general repair type people there were in the buildings. Anyone could have pulled it off, just due to the shear amount of people moving through out the buildings everyday.

Don't get me wrong though, I am on your side.

I am on the side of rational discourse... regardless of the conclusions.

I don't think wireless detonators would be an appropriate solution. They could induce quite a lot of current and detonate before they were meant to be. Especially if they were installed near high voltage / current lines.

There were 80 elevator mechanics inside the towers on the morning of 9/11.

[citation needed]

Scroll down to "Elevator mechanics left the buildings."

Cheers!

That seems like an usually high number of elevator mechanics.

Is there any way of finding out how many mechanics would have been there on a normal day?

Very good question. Anyone?

Reading the article, it is unclear as to whether the mechanics were there already, or turned up to help out.

The WTC1 and WTC2 towers also had their fireproofing upgraded, with the work conveniently focused on the blocks of floors that were hit. Failing of the fireproofing was cited as one of the main reasons for the collapse, so this would be something of a red flag. Paint the beams with a corrosive agent instead of fireproofing, nano-thermite or other volatile compounds.

In WTC1 these happen to be exactly the floors occupied by Marsh who acquired Kroll Inc., the very company that took care of upgrading the towers security after the 1993 bombing. Marsh Crisis Management was also headed up by none other than L. Paul Bremer who was the former coordinator of counter-terrorism for the US Government and later became the governor of Iraq. The guy with the lost billions, it's funny how the coincidences stack up.

Among his roles, Bremer was the former assistant of Henry Kissinger himself and later the managing director of Kissinger & Associates.

Bremer and 1,700 of his employees at Marsh & McLennan had offices in both towers. Bremer's office was in the South Tower. He and his people occupied floors at and "above where the second aircraft hit." At the time of his television interview with CNN on September 14, 2001, 450 of his colleagues were unaccounted for; 295 were eventually counted as dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2pW6WZhZrQ

Accidents happen.

Something that has always bothered me is the low number of people who were at work that day. I mean, sure, a bunch fled, but the population of WTC1&2 was about 100,000 people and there were only what, 15,000-20,000 there that Tuesday at 8am? C'mon! Where were the rest of the people?

Not "structural inspection" - "electrical work."

Even the security cameras were off.

As to "how would anybody not notice" - if you give it just a little bit of thought, you'll realize how silly the question is.

Here's the thing: High explosives--available only within military and intelligence quarters--were empirically, scientifically shown to exist in WTC dust. How it got there is a legitimate question (and one with several credible possibilities), but the existence of it is not. We KNOW it was there. There is no question on this. http://911blogger.com/node/19761 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Moreover, what else can explain the enormous amount of WTC dust, and the complete obliteration of the towers? Fires do not pulverize thousands of tons of concrete.

As for how it got there:

"Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust in the South Tower , has come forward to expose the unusual and unprecedented power-down that occurred the weekend before 9/11. He explained that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours.

As a result of having the electricity cut, security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems and elevators to the upper floors." http://www.911truther.com/article1.html

There have also been reports of extensive pre-9/11 renovations, especially in the elevator shafts. It's also significant that the towers had been privatized in the months before 9/11 for the first time in history. The problem, though, is that much of the evidence was deliberately destroyed. The thousands of tons of steel frames, for instance, were immediately confiscated and sent abroad to be recycled and/or destroyed. It's difficult to provide a thorough explanation when evidence has been purposely hidden. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/destroyed.html

But there have been many individuals within the towers who experienced enormous explosions both before and after the planes hit. One that is particularly interesting is William Rodriguez:

"Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions." http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_911_controlled.pdf

Other accounts of explosives: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

As to how many people are in on it, my guess would be that most had no clue of their own involvement. Compartmentalization can be quite handy. But the extent to which this was actually a government-run operation, rather than a government-allowed operation, I do not know. The evidence suggesting Israeli involvement is more than negligible (and before I get accused of being anti-Semitic, I am a secular Jew), and would explain a great deal. But again, it is difficult to paint a picture without all the colors.

I seem to remember that there was a telecommunications wiring upgrade that happened during the course of a couple of weekends a month or so before the attack. The company was not named and they were accessing floors that were not being used. One of the people who survived the attack also said he could hear lots of construction on the floor above him, which was unoccupied, in the weeks before. They could have put the charges in then.

One theory that I had when it first happened was that they possibly had the buildings wired since construction just in case of some sort of catastrophe made the buildings unstable. Then they could be demolished quickly before they toppled and killed a lot of other people. They would never make this public incase the information got into the wrong hands and then they would be blown up randomly by terrorists. It sounds a little dumb, but it makes a little sense. That is why there was an order to "pull it". It was already wired as a safety measure.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html

That's a new one, thanks.

[deleted]

The important thing to point out is regardless of the planes crashing, a building should not collapse into it's own footprint. Ever.

Indeed it is widely believed that "Professional demolition experts take months to plan and execute a demolition..." in order to make this happen. If building do fall into their own footprints all by themselves, then the demolition experts have been taking people for an expensive ride for many years.

I disagree.

If a building loses total structural integrity as it starts to collapse, then there won't be any forces to tilt the falling floors one way or another.

To get a tilt, you need one side of the building staying up while the other is collapsing.

Nope - they tilt!

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fallen-13-story-shanghai-building-1.jpeg

http://www.tauber.umich.edu/News%20and%20Events/IPD/2008/team9/images/disasters/fallen_building.jpg

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wordp/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/building-collapse.jpg

Why not? Better than going sideways.

I believe he is stating physics, not preference.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

This means at the minimum that both of there foundations and support beams were compromised in someway.

There is utterly nothing you could do to the foundation to provide the result we see. The buildings collapse from the top, not the bottom.

Sure there is, you could take out the core columns with an angled cut every 5-10 floors up to the anticipated point of impact and wait for a gust of wind. The unobserved center of the building would give way bringing down the top 20-30 floors like a hammer, destroying the perimeter columns along the way.

And that would look quite a bit different from what we see. We do not see collapse from the bottom, we don't see it from random places, we see from the top floor by floor. Nothing happens at the base until the entire building has collapsed, which means that nothing you do at the bottom would cause what you see.

There seems to be this notion that if the top, say, 40 floors collapse the rest of the building could somehow have survived. That makes no sense. 40 floors (10 even) impacting is quite a bit different than simply withstanding a static load. Once it starts to collapse there is nothing to stop it from continuing. You don't need to assert cutting or exploding or melting anything after that.

Have you taken a look at any buildings damaged by a similar size gash? Like this one perhaps?

http://imgur.com/gHTVU.jpg

It burned a lot longer then they did.

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

So a different building with a vastly different structure reacted very differently to a different circumstance. Now what does that have to do with my previous point? Here is what you did. You made a claim, I refuted it. Rather than either re-arguing for your point or accepting the rebuttal, you simply change to a different argument. Sorry, but I am not going to play that game. Do you want to discuss whether or not work at the foundation could have hand any affect on what we saw? If not, then not. If so, then how could that be?

First, I did not make the previous point.

Second, you really haven't refuted anything... You made a claim with sound theory, but no examples or applicable data. I will back up my claims here, I would love if you could do the same. I am always interested in hearing all sides of any complex issue. It would be arrogant of any of us to say, with any certainty, that we know anything about "what really happened." We can speculate given the 'facts' we have.

I understand your argument, but this building was stronger then you are giving it credit for. The sudden addition of an extreme dynamic load obviously would have had a large impact on the structural integrity of both buildings, the issue I have is that they were SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand being stuck by a large commercial plane.[citation needed]? sounds good.

|"...architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center |towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal |Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to |the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main |differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The |impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force |limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only |ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to |absorb (“Nerdcities: The Guardian” 2002). So, from an engineering |perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, |should have been able to withstand the collisions on September |11th..."

-Vikas Agrawal (science-writing.org)

|"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have |seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' |centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes |as the building was made to withstand them."

The Telegraph

Here are the blueprints for the buildings: Tower Blueprints

Here is a good analysis of the collapse: Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

I would recommend checking these out. Also, Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has A LOT of great info/analysis to take a look at if you are technically minded. A&E for 9/11 Truth: Tech Arts

I would be happy to take a look at anything you have to defend your side of this as well. I am always looking for more information on the topic.

I understand your argument, but this building was stronger then you are giving it credit for.

Not just me. The NIST people had access to the info. And I dispute this "stronger" claim. The WTC pushed the technology of the time and had a somewhat uncommon construction with all of the support at the core.

Second, no one asserts that the impact along took down the building. The impact is significant, and the fuselage seems to have survived to hit the core, but so is the fire. We have a damaged building and a core fire weakening the joints. I think that most "truthers" see this as melt/not melt rather than heat until failure.

The Boeing 707 is similar to |the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main |differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower.

There are lots of models of each of those and we don't know the weight used in the initial modeling for the WTC. It looks like 707s were around 300,000 lbs while the 767 is about 400,000, a 33% increase. And "slower" has no meaning here. What matters is the speed at actual impact vs. the speed of impact in the model.

|"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have |seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' |centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes |as the building was made to withstand them."

This is just odd. You doubt everything anyone in authority tells you about the collapse, but you find a tourist aimed PR meaningful. Yes, I bet they thought it was secure, that does not mean the modeling was accurate. Or that they could deal with a heavier plane moving, perhaps, faster. Or that they considered the combination of fire and impact.

Here is a good analysis of the collapse: Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

I am a little confused by the source here. The heading looks like this paper is by Seffen, but it is a critique of that paper. That said, let me make a few comments:

"Furthermore, it has been "well-established" that the factors that caused the onset of collapse in the South Tower appear definitely to not have been the fires. The fires created from the plane impacts were not that intense just before the collapse initiation for either Tower, and for the South Tower the res seemed close to being contained and put out by the firemen when suddenly rapidly horizontally-moving masses of material violently broke through walls of the floors below where the fires had been burning from the plane hit."

There is a critical error here. The concern is not the fire just before the collapse, the question is whether the fire got hot enough to weaken the supports. Once weakened they can start to shift. At that point unequal cooling itself can cause problems since that would cause more movement and weakening of the joints. (As an example the Dresden Cathedral, which had a steel structure, survived the bombing, but collapsed suddenly the next day though there were not more explosions near by.)

The rest unfortunately reference yet more papers that I do not have access to or don't have at the moment.

I would be happy to take a look at anything you have to defend your side of this as well. I am always looking for more information on the topic.

Here is my problem, 99% of the "truthers" give nonsensical and even inconsistent claims. We get talk of cutting the foundation, which is clearly meaningless. We get talk of molten metal weeks after which somehow shows that thermite was used. We get claims that air pressure blowing out windows shows it was an explosion. Or this "twisting" claim which I simply don't get. What I don't see at all is evidence that is not explained well by the standard account.

[deleted]

I don't see the disintegration, I can see the walls through the smoke. Yes, I see dust, but that does not mean it has disintegrated.

There seems to be this notion that if the top, say, 40 floors collapse the rest of the building could somehow have survived. That makes no sense.

This deserved repeating.

And if the top 40 floors were to collapse, the floors below it would fall straight down in some magical defiance of basic physics?

This picture might interest you both. The chunk missing might seem familiar, well other then the catastrophic vertical collapse. http://imgur.com/gHTVU.jpg

Why don't you check out info on some other steel framed buildings and fire? There are plenty of case studies out there. Here is a starting point explaining the picture above in detail.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

The First Interstate Bank fire & The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel are two good places to go after that.

I am well aware that it was not the "first steel framed building to collapse due to fire damage" like a lot claim, but those cases, especially the Mandarin, have relevance here and should be noted.

There weren't any core columns.

That's the whole point.

The WTC was held up by the sides, which is why they were targeted, and why no other skyscrapers have ever been built this way.

There weren't any core columns.

Yes there were.

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

there is a video called 911 tip of the iceberg that mentions this and has some pictures of the 4ft crawl spaces between the floors

Here is one idea...http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

They were wired up exactly the same way WTC 7 was wired up.

Nobody knew about it. Nobody was supposed to know about it.

But WTC 7 WAS WIRED UP. And so were the twin towers. Which proves how easy it is to do it and to keep it a secret.

There is a lot that is done that the average person knows nothing about. Airliners don't need pilots, either. Betcha you didn't know that, either.

[deleted]

You've likely seen the videos. You know they came down after the planes hit. That how they came down at free fall speeds.

Its not impossible, It happened just as you say.

Why would it be impossible? Remote detonators, timed to go off to look like a collapse and yet totally covered up by actually using the explosions themselves.

In a standard controlled Demo they are not trying to shower the area with concrete. It's an unnecessary mess. They did it on 9/11 because if everyone saw the standard flashes and rings around the building....people would immediately figure shit out. The amazing display you see with big "banana peel" PULVERIZED concrete, that the smoke screen.

Ask yourself how fire managed to pulverize concrete at the very beginning of the "collapse". Ask yourself why or HOW the remaining floors below the impact could just "give up" and disintegrate all the way to the bottom. Never falling to the left or right, nothing....just straight down into itself.

Ask yourself the simple questions. Don't watch the video and tell yourself that is a building collapsing because THAT has never happened, ever before.

110 floors, an acre in size.....they just all gave up. The fires could be knocked down with two lines.....all the audio shows this and everyone believes that fire caused it to fall. Remember, at free fall speeds, that is almost 9 floors a second. Imagine fire being able to REMOVE 9 floors every second? Think its possible? Physics says it cannot happen so you'll have to go way out of you way to show it can be done. Bend all the rules of the universe if you can.

Airliners don't need pilots, either.

Is that why they pay so little these days?

I thought the problem was landing, and the pilot was needed for that?

One good question would seem to be - Do buildings just fall down in their own footprints? Or do they need Professional demolition experts, who must spend months planning, and weeks placing and wiring, complicated demolitions?

It seems the authorities tell us that it could not possibly be explosives that brought down the buildings - as that would be too difficult to put into operation - yet when they are countered with the argument that the buildings fell on their own footprint, so it must have been explosives, we are told that they didn't really fall on their own footprint, and a lot of rubble fell far enough away that it set wtc7 on fire.

So maybe this kind of demolition, which is not the result of months of careful planning, but is a semi professional rush job, caused the buildings to fall mostly in their own footprints, can be put into action be a few guys in a lift shaft with some explosives.

One good question would seem to be - Do buildings just fall down in their own footprints?

I walked through some of that building and I was several blocks away.

Or do they need Professional demolition experts, who must spend months planning, and weeks placing and wiring, complicated demolitions?

To get it to fall, yes. It is an astoundingly painstaking thing for experts. This would have been by far the largest ever done, more than twice as tall as the next largest. And the WTC had unusual construction, so they would have had to consider that. They need to place the explosives right up against the support columns, not several inches away. They need to know how the stuff in the building will direct and shield the blast.

It seems the authorities tell us that it could not possibly be explosives that brought down the buildings - as that would be too difficult to put into operation - yet when they are countered with the argument that the buildings fell on their own footprint, so it must have been explosives, we are told that they didn't really fall on their own footprint, and a lot of rubble fell far enough away that it set wtc7 on fire.

It would have been too difficult to explosively demolish the WTC if it was a public job. Given that the support is the core and it was so tall demolition would likely be considered impossible. That it fell "in its footprint" say nothing about that at all. And WTC7 was across the street.

So maybe this kind of demolition, which is not the result of months of careful planning, but is a semi professional rush job, caused the buildings to fall mostly in their own footprints, can be put into action be a few guys in a lift shaft with some explosives.

Nonsense. The claim is that this was not a rush job, but the best of all time. Somehow they demolished the building top down, not bottom up, which is not how they do it. They made it collapse floor by floor, again quite unique.

They need to place the explosives right up against the support columns

So if there were no explosives 'right up against the support columns' the buildings wouldn't have fallen down?

Does this thing require extremely high precision placing of high explosives by experts - or will any old big explosion - like an aircraft hitting the building, for example - bring the building down?

Amen.

I never understand this argument. It takes demolition experts months and months of complicated, precise, difficult preparation and involves massive amounts of highly-powerful explosives to bring a building down, and therefore it is obvious that a (relatively) isolated plane crash caused what would otherwise have taken months of planning and loads of explosives. Twice. In under two hours. Come again?

[deleted]

Some argue that the third building, WTC7 might even have been the primary target of the operation.

It housed the SEC files as well as the Secret Service field office, but would have needed the third plane to hit to seem plausible. After all, buildings don't just collapse into their footprints for no reason. As it happened, the building was left dressed up for a party that never happened - they had to pull it for any chance of eliminating the evidence and hope that there were enough smoke and mirrors in place.

Remember the truck painted with picture of a plane hitting the towers found on the streets and later dismissed? This would seem like a secondary explanation in case the planes didn't create a plausible reason due to unknown factors.

As the operation didn't go all as planned, with the second plane being delayed in departure long enough for the first to take a long detour before their synchronized meeting over Stewart AFB it's possible the third plane never made its rendezvous.

If the people heading the operation expected news to report three planes hitting and only two happened, this would have been quite confusing and could explain the stalling and paralysis of some of the involved parties.

It was all supposed to be so simple. One-two-three. Planes hit each building, buildings come down. When the planes didn't arrive on time, the buildings didn't collapse on time.

When WTC1 and WTC2 had not yet collapsed, a third plane couldn't hit WTC7 as the flight path would have gone through the two first buildings. This was possibly the biggest fumble overall if we're to follow the theory of an engineered false flag attack.

Why would Bush remain sitting in the school after learning of the two planes? What do actors do when the script is suddenly derailed?

They improvise.

WTC7 was brought down by improvisation, not by a plane.

so fuckin true.

and with only 2 planes, too.

So if there were no explosives 'right up against the support columns' the buildings wouldn't have fallen down?

If they are not right up against the columns then you don't know what will happen. The actions become unpredictable. You have to use significantly larger charges and you don't know whether they blow more or less. The whole point is to have some control. What we see is a building falling down stepwise, floor wise, from top to bottom. No one has presented me with a coherent narrative to explain how explosives would do this. People talk about explosives on the bottom, but those are meaningless. Either you have explosives at the various levels from the point of impact down or it is meaningless. They have to blow exactly right and at exactly the right time. Late and they clearly are not needed, early and we would see it. And if they were not needed but they were there we would see separate evidence of those explosions.

Does this thing require extremely high precision placing of high explosives by experts - or will any old big explosion - like an aircraft hitting the building, for example - bring the building down?

To bring the building down so that it looks like the airplane did it requires precise placement. You can take the building down in a wide range of ways, but that is not your claim. You don't simply say it was blown up, you say it was blown up to look like it was taken down by the fire/airplane. Your story requires extreme precision, far more than normal, to produce a specific story within a chaotic situation.

you say it was blown up to look like it was taken down by the fire/airplane

No, I am not saying this - I am saying it did look like explosives.

There is a fire three quarters of the way up the building - and suddenly, for no apparent reason, the whole thing fall into its own footprint. I mean come on - For this to happen, teams of experts need to spend months...

If there are contractors working on a building, be it for remodeling, repair, wiring it up for implosion, anything, how many people pay any attention to them? Do you? More often then not the contractors move pretty freely answering only to their boss and whoever at the site brought them on.

A hell of a lot less people are needed then you may think. See above...

Also, compartmentalization is a great tool to keep people out of the loop/quiet.

Ask Marvin Bush http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

[deleted]

What does WTC7 and The White House in 1812 have in common? :)

[deleted]

books were cooked, building was burnt down to destroy evidence of cooked books.

this isn't a new trend. there have been 53 of these since 1 A.D.

a wise person would read up on the history of money.

[deleted]

it actually goes much further than that. Freemasonry/illuminati are just facets of the overall gem that is world/economic control. the same group of people have been responsible for enterprise corruption for almost 2,000 years. While the power structure has altered slightly (in the 1200's, the Council of Trent/Superior General took power), the same organization is still in charge.

if you haven't been there yet, check out Legatus sometime, and more specifically, Thomas Monaghan. just more proof that all roads still lead to Rome.

[deleted]

Legatus, according to many, is responsible for rigging the market twice a year, and organizing the book cookers (Arthur Anderson, PriceWaterhouseCooper's, etc). the member list is shocking; almost every Fortune 500 company is represented by one executive. twice a year, once the checks clear with the vatican (usually a week after the Rome Pilgrimage), you see massive economic upheaval reflected in the markets.

I'm not sure Legatus is losing any battles. While they have an agenda to promote, their main goal is control of the economy. and they've been successful at that since the 1980's.

Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals... they're all just denominations of the same religion, and the same laws. think of them like 50's, 20's, 10's, and 5's (the denominations in your wallet). as they're all highly-profitable legal tax shelters, it's best to just view them that way.

here's the top of the ladder, when it comes to world control (in case you hadn't found it yet). everything else is just a subset of that order (including Legatus).

asbestos removal inspection?

if it was a controlled demo, how come only the windows on one side were shattered? WTC7

[deleted]

only the windows on one side of the WTC7 were shattered according to the pics. Im not saying it is proof of one thing or another, but it does beg the question, how did those other windows survive IF it was a CD?

Thermite, and more specifically nano-thermite, can be incorporated into a liquid suspension. All you have to do is paint the liquid on. You could even put it into, paint! The person applying the stuff wouldn't even need to know what they were really doing.

I'm waiting to hear from a single person on one of these alleged crews, or someone who saw them or some tangible evidence. Kevin Ryan, and David Chandler has an article on 9/11 blogger on this subject. http://911blogger.com/node/20609

I'm sure the list is very long that contains war criminals, mass murderers and traitors that have come forward and confessed to their crimes.

I'm sure that if you were a traitor and mass murdered 3000 people, you would go public and confess.

In the top of the post someone came forward and saw crews working....

I don't see any reason to suspect WTC1 and 2 fell from explosives. Their collapse occurred at the damaged area first, bringing the roof and other floors on top of the already damaged(or weakened) perimeter core.

WTC7 collapse seem to begin at the base, where a typical demolition would take place. That one held offices of CIA, FBI, Secret Service, SmithBarney, the SEC, and more. I have said it before that any of those entities would likely have confidential data destruction plans in place, that could include anything from mild explosives to all out wiring of complete building. It is documented that they didn't have much of a firefighting force or even water to contain the fires within WTC7 by that late afternoon, so in their fear of a security breach or other, they could have initiated whatever procedures they had.

This is all opinion and not meant to get sand in anyone's vagina (it seems to keep happening when I type my opinion in this forum...).

[deleted]

Steel at the bottom of the building was around sixteen times stouter than the steel at the top to support all the weight above it.

There was plenty of the lower portion that was still standing after the collapse.

This would not have nearly enough weight or momentum to crash thru the hundreds of heavier built floors

citation needed...

I understand the "pancake theory" doesn't hold water in terms of actually creating the collapse, but after the initial collapse of those upper floors, the lower floors stood no chance of being able to even momentarily support the momentum/weight of the floors above that were collapsing.

[deleted]

The second link (wtc7.net) states:

The accumulation of forces as the collapse progressed would have damaged portions of the outer wall closer to the ground more than higher portions, despite the thicker gauge of the steel lower in the tower.

This is exactly what happened, maybe not so much focused on the outer wall, and not necessarily at the bottom of the towers - more towards the center, where window blowouts were observed. The accumulation of forces is exactly why the lower floors couldn't contend with the weight and momentum of the upper floors.

I get that there are a lot of uncertainties with either of our perspectives. I don't even claim to know, so I'm just providing my opinion. I'm always interested in learning more about it, but AE911truth just reads too much like the timecube. hehe

That is FALSE. Anyone looking at the collapses sees the TV towers at the very top falling straight down first. There was no damage from any airplane way up there.

I think you need to watch it again. You missed the part where the fires actually spread to floors above... The top floor didn't fall "first". It was floors near the top that buckled first, and those were caused by the bowing of the perimeter columns according to NIST.

according to NIST.

Yeah, right.

for really reals

Honestly, I don't see it. can you explain more or help me look for something in particular?

That would lead to the following I think... (just thinking here, I have no facts)

WTC1 and 2 collapsed, WTC 7 got damaged by chunks of WTC 1/2 crashing down.

To protect national security, a self destruct is set in motion for WTC 7 so that snooping firemen or disaster tourists can't steal secret or confidential documents (about mob cases, informants, undercover operations).

The debris from all towers is hauled away and destroyed to protect all remaining confidential data (there were insurers, banks, doctor's offices in there).

Well hmm - I don't believe the official story, but still wonder indeed, as the OP asked, how the demolitions were installed. This reasoning (and again, I'm just thinking here) would open a crack in my theory about 9/11. Interesting - I'll see if I find anything to support my line of thought. Don't hold your breath, that might take months.

Well, the OP brought up the topic of demolitions/explosives. I brought out my opinion that only 7 was likely to have been pulled. It's not a crack in mine or anyone's "theory", he/she posted a question/topic and others are discussing it.

If more information comes to light that changes my understanding -then great, I progress as a person.

I was confirming nor refuting you comment - I was merely thinking out loud and wanted to share. That crack can be sealer or opened further; there's nothing wrong with questioning your own thoughts, is there?

Nobody has blabbed because they were all committed Zionist Israelis who don't give a flying fuck what happens to America, as long as we keep sending them money and doing their dirty work. There may have been incidental laborers or other "tools", who I'm sure are now sleeping with the fishes.
Lookie HERE.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne] According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

Maybe a combination of key structural weakening and nano-thermite.

They were big pieces of real estate, contractors would come and go at all times for the various companies that were either moving in or moving out.

But that is conjecture at best though.

Thermite in the paint. hire a team to do some painting, supply the equipment. they get paid, never know anything. Meanwhile, you've primed the building for destruction.

I'm going to guess that at least 300 people are "in on it". most of these people have sworn oaths to various fraternities they conspire with, often swearing death to themselves and their families if they turn on them. However, many many more people know.

Google Marvin Bush towers.

Then go learn about Silverstein.

Then go learn about the asbestos in the towers.

Then you have a pretty good idea of not only how but why.

The buildings were under-insured, so there's no reason to believe the owners were in on it.

Your stupidity is very intense.

Very intense.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

He got lucky in court. If he was aware that both buildings would go down the same day, he wouldn't have taken the chance of only insuring against one. First rule if you want to commit a conspiracy is to never trigger an investigation from the insurance company.

You speak with great authority without knowing much about the topic.

Go research who Larry Silverstein is connected to. Go research where the money trail for 911 went.. etc.. I know way more about 911 than you and I can assure you Silverstein had a hand in those demolitions.. for Israel.

Silverstein has ties of various kinds in Israel. He is a donor to Tel Aviv University and to the Tel Aviv development foundation. He held a few fundraising events at his home in New York for the foundation with the participation of the then-mayor of Tel Aviv, Roni Milo.

Silverstein is also a member of the joint American-Israeli commission for housing and community development, which was established by former president Bill Clinton.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voltairenet.org%2Farticle164399.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/140307Silverstein.htm

Larry had friends in Israel at the highest level.. the HIGHEST level. He was the perfect guy to have in their court for a mossad operation.

Study lucky Larry and your smug attitude will evaporate, along with your ignorance of the topic.

I did. I was a real believer and read more about it than you ever will. Then I realized the main argument of the truthers was that everybody else was morons, and not one single piece of hard evidence ever has been presented. Pro tip: A Jewish surname haven't been applicable as evidence in any court of law since 1945.

Wow, you really are dense and too lazy to research the topic at hand aren't you? Even when it's spoon fed to you. Sad. Pathetic.

Do you have any idea why 911 never will be tested in a court of law, or how extremely sad your arguments appear for anyone who not swallows the cool-aid? But keep calling everybody who disagrees stupid, and I bet you will turn them over. Try yelling SHEEPLE in uppercase. I've heard it works miracles in the court.

Ok you dumb fucking trolling nigger piece of shit. Your conversation ended when you refused to pay attention to silverstein's links to Netanyahu, the port authority, etc.. you don't bother with the details, you don't want to know the details, you are too lazy to know the details.

If you knew the details... you wouldn't be such a mouthy nigger asshole on the topic.

Silverstein is buddies with the Prime Minister of Israel, the then-head of the port authority, and made over a billion dollars on the destruction of the buildings. There's a very long list of more information.. but you didn't even make it to the very first bit of information because you are an asshole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5659

http://www.observer.com/node/44259

Lewis Eisenberg

http://www.nndb.com/people/003/000120640/

Silverstein obtained this lease from his Jewish synagogue buddy, Lewis M Eisenberg, (who was then the Chairman of the Port Authority of New York), even though Vornado Realty outbid Silverstein by $50m.

Sorry, I don't argue with racists.

That's because you are an illiterate ignorant nigger. Stay that way.. it will get you many beat-downs in life.

Yeah, that's really convincing. You should go into marketing. Insulting the audience is always a sure winner.

Nigger asshole. The convincing part was the part you couldn't/wouldn't read because you are an illiterate ignorant goddamn nigger jackass.

What on earth makes you believe your insults will make me want to read your bullshit anyways? You've clearly got some unrelated issues, and I truly recommend you clear that up before raising your voice if you want to win people over in the future. Your attitude only hurts the cause.

As previously noted.. nigger jackass illiterate douchebag cum drinking bitch.. you.

Remember that Larry Silvestein himself said that building 7 was "pulled", (demolished with explosives, which takes quiet some time to prepare) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0v so, why couldn't the other two buildings have ben "pulled" too?

The steel was cut every other floor (30' pieces).

(110 floors/2 = 55 floors per tower) x 2 towers = 110 floors

Assume that a crew of 2 could do 2 floors/day would make it 55 days.

First off, any cutting on the bottom is meaningless. Second, it would take more that a crew of 2 to do a floor and more than half a day.

To Truthers and (respectful) proponents of the Mainstream theory, this is a great question and we need to use critical thinking here.

but strategically demolishing the building. Professional demolition experts take months to plan and execute a demolition of much smaller buildings

I think the most pressing question was from stingerbell, and we shouldn't be dow nvoting someone just because they have a well formed argument. He says

After the (remote-controlled) planes crash into the tower, a government team enters the Twin Towers to move the explosives to the correct floors. You wouldn't want the towers collapsing from an undamaged floor, so someone had to move the thermate into the middle of the inferno on the 93rd floor of tower 1 and the 77th floor of tower

While I'm not a fan of using sarcasm in a serious discussion, he has a point that how do you prewire a building to explode in the exact place the plane hit?

Have you ever seen the real old films of airplanes crashing into walls and stuff? They could hit center on those walls remote control, what, forty, fifty years ago?

The oldest Kennedy brother was killed in World War Two when his remote control bomber exploded prematurely.

If you buy into the remote control theory, you can accept that they could hit exactly where they wanted to.

radio.

[deleted]

What?

I dont think it requires a great deal of explosives in the first place. a couple of well place detonations on any structure can bring it down.

well, first of all....absolutely none of them fell perfectly in on themselves

Why "especially building 7" ? If anything, considering the occupants and the likelihood of it containing material which certain parties wouldn't ever want getting out, it would seem not entirely far fetched that building 7 might be pre-wired for self destruction just as a normal precaution.

I'm not saying I agree with the church of controlled demolition, just that if any of the buildings had a fair chance of being pre-wired, it would seem wtc 7 would be most likely.

You don't "pre-wire" a building to go up. Ever

You do pre-wire compartments cleared for top secret and above traffic.

No you don't ever. No one would ever pre-wire something to explode. What would happen if it just went off randomly? Even the Soviets doomsday plan didn't pre-wire buidings and they are as crazy as you can get

Gee, I guess all that time in the Navy, I must have hallucinated the magnesium/thermite grenade that was to be used in case invaders came onto the ship seeking classified material.

They must have brainwashed me into thinking it was real, when it was obviously just a prop. And all that time I spent mulching classified documents, training for the above scenario (there is a prioritized order..), and in general preparing for the worst, was all just a dream.

Thanks for opening my eyes! /s

Yes I know about those gernades and how they are used but are they preset ontop of the safe with a remote control trigger? No.

So you said "they don't pre-wire", but now it's... "well, they might pre-wire, they just don't set them up for remote detonation" ? lol ok.

Yeah I'm sure the CIA, FBI, SS, and others never ensure the destruction of classified material with nothing other than a local "last man standing" rule. <sarcasm>

I said they have places to set charges on the bridges not prewired

Also the Swiss have some of their bridges preset for demo in case they are invaded. Do you think they have actual explosives set up on the bridge? No they are just preset for them

Yes, you do.

Of course you do, you ignorant wretch. Check cold war history.

I think what you meant to say was "That doesn't line up with my personal theory so I'll pour my ignorance all over it and hope it goes away".

Tell us about this "cold war history" of similar explosive demolition of a skyscraper. Or were you comparing this to some completely different situation?

No thats what the truthers believe. You can't even use thermite to make a horizontal cut

I meant the collapse of WTC7 with the official "fires started somehow, it fell down" line, is the most outlandish, but it's obviously the most conceivable one that could have been wired pre-hand...

If you are not going to google this retarded question then why in the world would you ask conspiracy subreddit? It would take far less time.

Oh okay let's remove every fucking link from this subreddit as it can all be found on google you fucking jackass.

I was trying to start a discussion.

Then start a discussion do not open with "How am I a Moron?" asshat :P

... that's what I was doing. In order to start a discussion, one needs to posit a question. Are you not familiar with this concept?

This is how the people in the Conspiracy Reddit believe it happened....

Actually, they don't believe this - but it's the only thing that makes sense if all their conspiracies are true. Shows you just how intellectually dishonest they are:

1. The explosives are planted before 9/11.
2. After the (remote-controlled) planes crash into the tower, a government team enters the Twin Towers to move the explosives to the correct floors. You wouldn't want the towers collapsing from an undamaged floor, so someone had to move the thermate into the middle of the inferno on the 93rd floor of tower 1 and the 77th floor of tower 2.
3. This explains why the explosives weren't set off immediately when the planes hit - they had to be moved.
4. The alternate to this theory is - of course - that the government knew exactly what floors the planes were going to hit (in the future) and simply planted the explosives on the correct floors long before 9/11.

And, no, the evidence for controlled demolition DOES NOT add up. In fact, there is not one (reliable) piece of evidence that this was controlled demolition. Not one. It's 100% bullshit. It's nothing more than lies....

Now, that's not to say the the US government isn't lying through their teeth about everything. But, that doesn't mean they are in on it....

a government team enters the Twin Towers to move the explosives to the correct floors

a smart team would place it on all floors, and detonate only where appropriate.

And, that's even more ludicrous...

If there were literally explosives on every floor - how on Earth do you explain the fact that nobody saw them (there would have to be hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of explosives hiding in plain sight - remember EACH FLOOR would then need enough thermate to take down the entire building)...

there is some good research on those very questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW23PuBKiA0

lol I didn't say they did that, I said if they were smart, they would.

Who is to say that it was the US Government? That is your assumption.

Also, if you had a brain, you would realize that steel buildings do not collapse into their own footprint, forming large pyroclastic clouds, due to office fires.

If I had a brain...

Ha! OK, I hereby challenge you to an IQ test (can be administered by Reddit for fairness)! Loser pays the winner 20 bucks per IQ point difference. How about that?... I'll even spot you 10 points...

good job avoiding the "assumption" statement.

if it makes you feel any better, I'm sure you have a brain. now, answer his question. who is to say that it was the US government?

Answer his question?!? His question doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so I wouldn't know HOW to answer it! I never said it was the US government to begin with...

Yes they do! It's called gravity - look into it!...

yes, Stringer, please try to account for the dust. The concrete was demolished into a pyroclastic cloud. This is not a theory, you can see it in multiple videos of the collapse.

If you had a pancake collapse, you should have been left with somewhere around a 20 storey pile.

There is dust created IN ALL building collapses, so what's your point???

And, no, you wouldn't have a 20 storey pile of rubble. Again, it's called gravity and the laws of physics...

You missed a word. Pyroclastic. Pyroclastic dust is NOT created in all building collapses! It is created in many building demolitions, however. Which is my point. The evidence strongly suggests that these buildings were brought down by demolitions, not gravity.

But I'll play along for a bit. If it was gravity, please explain how the buildings came down in almost EXACTLY free-fall speed. Gravity? The top of the south tower leaned over almost 40 degrees before plunging straight down through the rest of the building. These buildings were 110 storeys each, with every floor covering an acre of space. That's an acre of concrete on every floor. 110 acres of concrete gone. Reduced to particulate levels.

Sorry, but the laws of physics do not support the conspiracy theory that the government is presenting.

I am sure that you are aware of the over 1100 architects and engineers have signed a petition supporting a new and truly independant investigation. Right?

To be clear, Stringer, I do not believe the "government" had anything to do with 9/11. I believe that there are criminal elements/agents/people that have infiltrated the government and military at the highest levels, and were able to pull this off due to their inside influence and control. They have gotten away with it through a combination of their peers apathy, cognitive dissonance, and plain old stupidty on the part of the general public - yourself included.

"I am sure that you are aware of the over 1100 architects and engineers have signed a petition supporting a new and truly independant investigation. Right?"

And you are aware of the 230,000 US architects and engineers WHO DIDN'T sign that. Right?

And, the ones who did sure as hell didn't state the conspiracy theories were true - they only called for a thorough, unbiased investigation - that doesn't mean they supported these ridiculous theories.

And, BTW, there was nothing about the WTC dust cloud that wasn't EXACTLY what you would expect in a collapse of that magnitude (and your suggesting that a collapse and a demolition are different is ludicrous, since ALL large building demolitions are simply initiations of collapses)...

You miss the point.

How many architects and engineers have signed a statement declaring that the official government conspiracy theory is completely correct.

That's what you have to show us.

Oh, and how stupid do you have to be to believe that a fricking jumbo jet filled with jet fuel WASN'T ENOUGH to destroy a building?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

The architect didn't believe it would, so I guess that stupid.

Statements by Engineers Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

Here

Yes, they were designed to withstand the impact of the planes - they weren't designed to withstand the impact of the planes AND several hours of inferno!...

You think someone with an engineering degree didn't realize that said jet would have tons of jet fuel that may just catch on fire after crashing into the building?

In fact re-read my quotes and you'll see just that.

There was NO inferno, and it certainly did not last for several hours! You keep proving you that you do not have even the slightest knowledge of what happened that day, and have not taken even a few minutes to do any research. You are not even trying to be accurate with your statements.

http://investigate911.org/Woman-in-WTC-Tower-hole-made-by-jet-is-not-filled-with-fire-or-hot.jpg

that pic shows the women standing in the open hole of the North Tower. Do you see a raging inferno?

I think you are actually just trolling this thread. I've seen you around before too, and am starting to feel bad for feeding you.

2 planes = 3 buildings.

You know very large planes have crashed into skyscrapers before and they didn't fall down? http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

You'd think they'd at least investigate the possibility that the towers weren't built correctly in the first place..

A B-25 Bomber has a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 kg. A Boeing 767-222 has a minimum weight of 82,380 kg, and a maximum take-off weight of 179,170 kg. The top speed of a 767 is also higher by a factor of 2 - 442 km/h vs 913 km/h. This accounts for an enormous difference in kinetic energy between the two crashes.

And the "official story" is that the buildings were brought down by fire, not by the plane crash... So none of that should matter much should it?

I see all the downvotes - WHAT I DON'T SEE IS ANYONE POSTING EVEN ONE PIECE OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN PLANES THAT TOOK DOWN THE TOWERS...

I'd like to see one piece of reliable evidence that fires took down the buildings...

Yup, I figured this comment would get downvoted - and no piece of actual evidence would be posted. And, I knew this because that piece of evidence doesn't actually exist.

troll detected. many replies, always ends on a thought-terminating cliche.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+of+explosives+9%2F11

Go through all 550,000+ websites and tell me there is no reliable evidence. face it, you're head is in the sand and you are happy with it there, you have no interest in hearing something the contradicts what you think. I have made no conclusion about what happened on 9/11, regardless, I am at least not so stubborn that if I had I would resort to whining like a schoolgirl online.

... that's what I was doing. In order to start a discussion, one needs to posit a question. Are you not familiar with this concept?

Yes I know about those gernades and how they are used but are they preset ontop of the safe with a remote control trigger? No.

Also the Swiss have some of their bridges preset for demo in case they are invaded. Do you think they have actual explosives set up on the bridge? No they are just preset for them

Have you ever seen the real old films of airplanes crashing into walls and stuff? They could hit center on those walls remote control, what, forty, fifty years ago?

The oldest Kennedy brother was killed in World War Two when his remote control bomber exploded prematurely.

If you buy into the remote control theory, you can accept that they could hit exactly where they wanted to.

Yes, they were designed to withstand the impact of the planes - they weren't designed to withstand the impact of the planes AND several hours of inferno!...

One good question would seem to be - Do buildings just fall down in their own footprints?

I walked through some of that building and I was several blocks away.

Or do they need Professional demolition experts, who must spend months planning, and weeks placing and wiring, complicated demolitions?

To get it to fall, yes. It is an astoundingly painstaking thing for experts. This would have been by far the largest ever done, more than twice as tall as the next largest. And the WTC had unusual construction, so they would have had to consider that. They need to place the explosives right up against the support columns, not several inches away. They need to know how the stuff in the building will direct and shield the blast.

It seems the authorities tell us that it could not possibly be explosives that brought down the buildings - as that would be too difficult to put into operation - yet when they are countered with the argument that the buildings fell on their own footprint, so it must have been explosives, we are told that they didn't really fall on their own footprint, and a lot of rubble fell far enough away that it set wtc7 on fire.

It would have been too difficult to explosively demolish the WTC if it was a public job. Given that the support is the core and it was so tall demolition would likely be considered impossible. That it fell "in its footprint" say nothing about that at all. And WTC7 was across the street.

So maybe this kind of demolition, which is not the result of months of careful planning, but is a semi professional rush job, caused the buildings to fall mostly in their own footprints, can be put into action be a few guys in a lift shaft with some explosives.

Nonsense. The claim is that this was not a rush job, but the best of all time. Somehow they demolished the building top down, not bottom up, which is not how they do it. They made it collapse floor by floor, again quite unique.

Well, the OP brought up the topic of demolitions/explosives. I brought out my opinion that only 7 was likely to have been pulled. It's not a crack in mine or anyone's "theory", he/she posted a question/topic and others are discussing it.

If more information comes to light that changes my understanding -then great, I progress as a person.

Something that has always bothered me is the low number of people who were at work that day. I mean, sure, a bunch fled, but the population of WTC1&2 was about 100,000 people and there were only what, 15,000-20,000 there that Tuesday at 8am? C'mon! Where were the rest of the people?

There weren't any core columns.

Yes there were.

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core –a combined steel and concrete structure–[28][29] of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design