Can you explain how anyone smuggled enough explosives into all of these buildings, prepared the buildings, planted the explosives, and then detonated said explosives, all into two fully operational office buildings in the city that never sleeps? Not only that, but then somehow silenced any witness that may have caught on?

Now, I'm not saying the government didn't play some role, I'm sure they did. I'm just not sure that they were actively involved in the attack.

SuperAntx wrote:

One person could set all that up in small steps over the course of a week. Hell, one determined individual could do it in an afternoon. Nobody knows or cares what's going on in the room next to them. They're in their own little world of making more money.

One person could not strip a building down to the frame(even for where the explosives would be), then set up enough explosives for a 110 story building without creating noise complaints. The people who complained would go home to their families and talk about all the noise, because they just sit in a cubicle all day. Banging and clanging would be rather exiting(annoying) if you're stuck in an office all day. There's no talk before about anything looking suspicious at all. Nobody noticed anything out of the ordinary. Even in New York, if there was something like this happening, people would notice.

Disturbed Puppy wrote:

Can you explain how anyone smuggled enough explosives into all of these buildings, prepared the buildings, planted the explosives, and then detonated said explosives, all into two fully operational office buildings in the city that never sleeps?

Yes, I can. It's actually the easiest part of this whole mess to explain. You seem to have some misconceptions about the towers, though, so let me start by clearing that up a bit. I'll begin with some background info on the twin towers and the state they were in prior to 9/11, with some extra details to provide context for it all.

The World Trade Center complex was completed in the early 1970s, but its design was started in the early 1960s, back when building codes and regulations were a bit more lax. Don't get me wrong, at the time they were state of the art structures, a marvel of man. Over the years, however, their quality fell behind the times until modern times, when it was clear the buildings would require a massive overhaul to keep them attractive to companies looking for office space, and also to make them comply with modern codes and safety regulations.

Larry Silverstein won the new public 99 year lease in July, 2001. The Port Authority basically handed control of the complex over to Silverstein, who would have had ample time and opportunity over the next 6 months to set everything up.

He hired a security team who were Principled by the youngest Bush son; a company called Securacom, who also held contracts with the Dulles International and United Airlines, though the UA contract ended before '98. This security team was all up in that mofo, doing who knows what, under the guise of updating security. Many people complained of the noise, though you won't find many of them alive now. Couple this with the power-down that occurred the weekend prior to the event, and you have your time and tactic.

Silverstein confessed to demolishing WTC7 on national television when he said "Pull it". The video evidence clearly shows a controlled demolition, ask a professional.

Not only that, but then somehow silenced any witness that may have caught on?

Like I've said many times already, mainstream media tells you only the official side. Literally, nobody is talking about it. Nobody listens to the people who are saying it. You call them crazy, say they didn't know what they heard or saw, attack the victims because the truth is too hard to take.

Now, I'm not saying the government didn't play some role, I'm sure they did. I'm just not sure that they were actively involved in the attack.

They had to be, it's the only explanation that makes any sense.

Xooxer wrote:

(Just read his comment, there's a lot there)

That's what I was asking since day one. Firefighters aren't trained with explosives, so it never made sense to me. Although I'm not quite ready to switch my stance, this does rock the boat.

Bootyboy wrote:

For more forensic information on the mechanics of how the WTC buildings fell, please explore http://wtc.nist.gov

Yeah, if you've read it, please explain the collapses in detail.

It would be easier to accept these theories as reasonable if they weren't presented in such ridiculous ways. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wUg1LJXtkg

Riva wrote:

It would be easier to accept these theories as reasonable if they weren't presented in such ridiculous ways. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wUg1LJXtkg

I totally agree that not everyone pursuing this matter is going about it with their fully working mental faculties in play. Interrupting a live taping isn't going to win any hearts or minds, and stunts like this mar (heh) the cause. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions that need answering, or that we should throw in the towel because some idiot decides to make a fool of himself on national television. It just goes to prove that you don't have to have a degree to be a professional moron.

Xooxer wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Much of their CD argument is covered here.
And see here for more on WTC7.

Silverstein confessed to demolishing WTC7 on national television when he said "Pull it"

That doesn't support anything... He says they eventually pulled it to contain fires. Again, see my WTC7 link.

The video evidence clearly shows a controlled demolition, ask a professional.

Those videos they showed all seemed to leave out the heavily damaged portions of WTC7, didn't they?
Then again, there were over 36,000 gallons of diesel being stored in WTC7. That professional is a demo expert. Does he even have knowledge of other ways a building would fall? Did you even watch the rest of the movie when Danny goes back on what he says in the beginning?
"That's odd, I agree."
"I can't explain it."
I doubt he knew much about WTC7, for instance the diesel cache and the extensive damage on other sides of the building.


"The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure"

Literally, nobody is talking about it.

Not true. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000 for 9/11 hoax.
It's not this side of the story that isn't being told properly. It's the other side. Many people log onto Youtube, see a video, and say "Conspiracy! Oh my God!" and never look for another side of the story. While some of these videos have some good points, it's sad that they all of significant amounts of misinformation. Youtube is just unreliable like that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely open to this side of the story - but nobody seems to have any reliable evidence for it. In fact, I used to believe in your theory, but I don't any more.

EDIT: Also, WTC1 didn't as it would in a controlled demolition. The WTC7 fire was extreme and there was a giant gash in it, see: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/ wtc-7-was-severely-damaged-on-south.html

Nickr5 wrote:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Much of their CD argument is covered here.
And see here for more on WTC7.

Where he states:

"Why wouldn't there be secondary explosions, and things that sound like explosions or bombs, in a disaster of that type and magnitude in buildings of that type and magnitude? I have yet to hear from a CTist why that's surprising."

He argues that these secondary explosions were due to various electrical failures, transformers blowing and such. He doesn't take into account the structure he talking about. Why is it so surprising that there should be burned bodies coming from the basement, explosions from the lower levels and eye witness reports of flashes going around the lower floors like a belt? I'll tell you why, because the twin towers were constructed in such a manner as to prevent this very thing form happening. Architects aren't idiots. They know the dangers of fire in high rise buildings. The WTC towers were built to prevent the fires from obtaining air from the stairwells and elevator shafts, or to use these to travel to other floors. It's the same reason the jets of pulverized concrete seen exploding out the sides of the buildings are so surprising. The floors were sealed to prevent air and fire and water from moving from one to the other. There is no way jet fuel can travel down anything in the towers to set off explosions far below the impact zone. Air cannot travel down to escape out windows during the collapse. The only thing that could have caused damage to levels below the impact zone is if there were other charges set to blow.

Many of the counter-arguments use false models of the towers to back up their claims that fire and air traveled down elevator shafts and caused damage on floors far below. By ignoring the actual architecture of the buildings, they can make their theory seem plausible. Even the official story does this, using the "service shafts" as their imaginary pipeline to damage far below the crash. If you tried to use the real architecture to explain these explosions, you have to then explain what set them off. Without a direct route from the crash site to the locations where these transformers would be, you'd have to remove a heck of a lot more than just a few walls or floors. He's basically arguing that the WTC was hollow, a very common misconception, and one which enables many of the official story scenarios.

That doesn't support anything... He says they eventually pulled it to contain fires. Again, see my WTC7 link.

The building was destroyed that morning. Your "eventually" is only a few hours after the initial event. It doesn't matter how you slice it, the order to "pull it" was given, and they watched the building collapse. That's a confession no matter how you look at it.

The video evidence clearly shows a controlled demolition, ask a professional.

Those videos they showed all seemed to leave out the heavily damaged portions of WTC7, didn't they?

You seem to think there's some magical amount of damage that will eventually cause this sort of collapse. There isn't. Buildings simply do not fall like this. Even under controlled conditions, it's very difficult to take a building down so smoothly. There's absolutely no way WTC7 fell naturally in this manner.

Then again, there were over 36,000 gallons of diesel being stored in WTC7.

Again, if you're going to ignite them, you have to show how. Simply stating that fuel exists doesn't mean it can do the damage, or was ever even ignited. The official report never explains any of that.

That professional is a demo expert. Does he even have knowledge of other ways a building would fall?

Yes, he does. Being an expert at how buildings fall is one of the cornerstones of demolition. He knows exactly what it takes to accomplish what he saw, and in his professional opinion, this is an implosion. No doubt about it.

Did you even watch the rest of the movie when Danny goes back on what he says in the beginning?

You'll have to clue me in here, since I'm not sure which video you're referring to.

"That's odd, I agree."
"I can't explain it."
I doubt he knew much about WTC7, for instance the diesel cache and the extensive damage on other sides of the building.

Even if he did know about those things, it would have made little difference. Asymmetric buildings damaged asymmetrically do not collapse symmetrically. Had the building toppled to one side, or partially collapsed, that would be natural. Full and total symmetrical collapse into it's own foundation at the rate of free-fall can only be accomplished by intelligent control.

"The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure"

Again, no amount of random damage will produce this perfect collapse.

Literally, nobody is talking about it.

Not true. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000 for 9/11 hoax.

I was refering to the mainstream media. Of course people are talking about it online, in gatherings and events all over the country, through forums and other means, but you never hear about any of it on the news. What you do get are craziest of crazies held up to show what nutters these 9/11 skeptics are. You will be hard-pressed to find any real discussion on official channels.

It's not this side of the story that isn't being told properly. It's the other side.

Both sides are being treated with kid gloves.

Many people log onto Youtube, see a video, and say "Conspiracy! Oh my God!" and never look for another side of the story.

That's not what serious investigators are doing, though. Most of them are using real footage taken from that day on VHS or digital media, audio recordings from various sources and eye witness reports from that day and after. People who just watch YT vids and post comments aren't the driving force behind the call for a new investigation, the friends, families and first responders are. The rest of us are just trying to help get the word out. It's the people who were directly affected that are at the forefront of this movement.

While some of these videos have some good points, it's sad that they all of significant amounts of misinformation. Youtube is just unreliable like that.

Yeah, perhaps. But then again, so is the official story. It has more holes than the no plane theory.

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely open to this side of the story - but nobody seems to have any reliable evidence for it. In fact, I used to believe in your theory, but I don't any more.

Except that there is reliable evidence, witnesses and records that all indicate the official story is wrong. The official side has no evidence to support it's claims either, and very little in the way of official explanation is given, leaving many open questions and no easy answers. Had the official reports even tried to explain the events in detail with supporting evidence that can be verified, 80% of us would believe it. I'm not shouting "conspiracy" because I don't like government, I'm shouting it because the official story indicates it. Had they done their job in the first place, most of us would be happy to accept the truth. It's all we're asking for.

EDIT: Also, WTC1 didn't as it would in a controlled demolition. The WTC7 fire was extreme and there was a giant gash in it, see: http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/ wtc-7-was-severely-damaged-on-south.html

The twin towers were exploded, rather than imploded. It's still a controlled demolition, just not of the sort you're used to seeing. Rarely are buildings taken down to spread their debris over a large area, but the towers had to be. Had they been brought down using the more common implosion technique, they would have destroyed nearly all of downtown Manhattan when they cracked the tub holding the Hudson at bay, flooding the city and causing unthinkable amounts of destruction. The only sure way to prevent this is to bring the building down over a larger area in smaller chunks so as not to put too much of a load on the bathtub that it sits in. WTC 7 was a much smaller building, so could be taken down with more conventional demolition methods.

Had the twin towers been imploded instead of exploded, we would have lost many more lives that day, and would have been cleaning up the entire area instead of the lone complex at ground zero. If you think fire is bad, you should see the kind of destruction uncontrolled water flow can do! Imagine a sinkhole the size of 4 city blocks, and that's just if it stays in ground zero.