It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For what reason??!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Okay, this is admittedly coming from a 9/11 conspiracy skeptic.

I've seen all the videos, heard much of the conjecture, evidence, counter-evidence, etc. to argue that demolitions ultimately brought down the WTC.

First, we need to agree on one basic scenario fact:

If in fact 9/11 was an inside job, we're talking about a conspiracy of enormous complexity, with so many moving parts -- the hijacking of the planes, commanders on top executing questionable orders to cease and desist investigations, keeping NORAD busy with a terrorist exorcize that mirrors real events, using a cruise missile instead of a plane against the Pentagon (and the black ops needed to hide the real plane and its passengers that allegedly hit the Pentagon), etc.
So many players that, as a conspirator, you will want to make sure to have as few knowledgable members as possible. To do so, you will need to keep your plan as simplified as possible.

Thus, if I were planning this with the neocons, I would think you would want to keep the plan to the bare minimum of events.

So here's my question:

To what purpose would I need to demolition the WTC?

I mean seriously, we're talking months, if not years, of operations to plant explosives. Why would I want to risk exposure for such an operation. It would seem to me that the plane attacks alone would accomplish what the neocons (of course assuming an inside job here) were after to begin with.

Through all of this admittedly educated analysis and conjecture, no one seems to ask that basic question. Why?

I'd love to hear your explanations.....because until I'm convinced of a need for that, I can't buy the explosives theory.




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
If you are looking for reasons as to why the twin towers had to come down, two words spring to my mind - Shock and Awe

The demolition of a great US icon happening live on worldwide TV created a shocked mindset throughout the world, and in particular amongst US citizens

The patriot act and the seemingly 'never ending' war on terror, amongst other things, were easier to implement without as much opposition had the terrible events of 9/11 not occurred as they did

Similar techniques of trauma are used in brainwashing and mind control - if looked at in this light, 9/11 could be seen as a trauma based conditioning technique scaled up massively from an individual to a whole continent. The effects would not have been so deep and far reaching had the towers stood.

By the way, I'm not saying that demolitions were used - I simply am not sure at this point in time. Personally, I am of the 'prior knowledge' view - i.e. elements of US intelligence were perfectly aware of the planned attacks, but certain people in power allowed them to happen




[edit on 22/9/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

If you are looking for reasons as to why the twin towers had to come down, two words spring to my mind - Shock and Awe

The demolition of a great US icon happening live on worldwide TV created a shocked mindset throughout the world, and in particular amongst US citizens

The patriot act and the seemingly 'never ending' war on terror, amongst other things, were easier to implement without as much opposition had the terrible events of 9/11 not occurred as they did

Similar techniques of trauma are used in brainwashing and mind control - if looked at in this light, 9/11 could be seen as a trauma based conditioning technique scaled up massively from an individual to a whole continent. The effects would not have been so deep and far reaching had the towers stood.

By the way, I'm not saying that demolitions were used - I simply am not sure at this point in time. Personally, I am of the 'prior knowledge' view - i.e. elements of US intelligence were perfectly aware of the planned attacks, but certain people in power allowed them to happen




[edit on 22/9/2006 by alienanderson]


I see your point, but operations planning is complex, and the more streamlined and simplified you can keep it, the more chance of success there would be.

Setting squibs in the WTC to me seems superfilous at best and downright risky if you're trying to avoid detection. Why risk the whole operation just to demolish the building. Again, I still think the jet attack on 3 buildings would have been enough for a Patriot Act and all else....



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
There were many interests involved in blowing the three WTC skyscrapers. Building 7 went down with much incriminating evidence against major groups like CitiGroup, Enron, etc., that would have otherwise come up in court cases against the giants and potentially exposed some scandals that could very well have crashed the US economy (and dwarved any 9/11 conspiracy), but that's a completely separate subject, tying in with the way banks operate and manipulate money, and I'm not as familiar with that material as I am with 9/11. Virtually everything in Building 7 belonged to either banks or the government (CIA, IRS, etc.), and it also housed an incredibly reinforced bunker built for Giuliani, with a grand view of the rest of WTC Complex.

Larry Silverstein, who took out a lease on the Towers and Building 7 shortly before 9/11 (I suspect with the upcoming events in mind), served to gain from the insurance policies he took out on them (doubly so on the Towers), and the buildings did not have to have asbestos removed (which would cost more than the Towers were worth) or be deconstructed because of structural aging (which would have come up in a decade or so anyway, and would also cost much more than they were worth). Demolition would have been less expensive, but probably also not allowed because of potential damage to so many surrounding structures. It was a major financial problem the owners would eventually have to face.

Psychologically, the blow to kick off a new "Cold War" of sorts for the US military-industrial complex and related groups came with the collapses. The plane impacts caused some profanity and open-mouthed stares, but the collapses are what caused actual shock (post-traumatic stress disorder being reported for millions of Americans after 9/11), and some blood-curdling screams you can pick out in some collapse videos. It was horrific to see them fall as they did, and seemed totally counter-intuitive physically, doubly reinforcing that schema-shattering effect they produced on us all, even if only subconsciously. Those directly involved had severe emotional trauma to work through. The world changed after those collapses, and that was exactly what was needed to kick off the new Orwellian mentality of giving up freedoms to chase these bad guys all over the Mid-East and abroad, country by country. Who could object after what had happened? Bush said we wouldn't stop with Afghanistan, and at the time, most of us were perfectly fine with that, even while understanding that this meant invading whole nations simply because of small cells of individuals using those nations.

Even with the total shock of the collapses, that mentality has not held up so well, and the Iraq War is so unpopular that I dare say any new war (without another 9/11!) will cause significant civil unrest. So, there are some of my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I had the same questions as you do now. The answers to your questions are out there and even in existing ATS threads. If you have the will, your questions will all be answered. I cannot answer your questions fully in one post, because it's going to be long and more time than I have. It's good that you ask questions. Some are even lazier to ask questions, just accept what the government tells them and turns the TV back on to watch Extra and Entertainment Tonight.

The Manhattan Project involved thousands of people and the secret was kept well hidden from the public. So, it's not an impossibility.

With 9/11, the full details of the conspiracy can be known just by a handful of people. It's all compartmentized. For example, the head of NORAD is given a memo (an order) to schedule exercises on 9/11/2001. He isn't given any more information than that. You might be a Lt. in charge of equiping and maintaining jet planes. You might receive an order to equip a 757 with remote-controlled capabilities. As a FEMA director, you receive an order for a terror drill for NYC on 9/10/2001. You aren't given any more information than that.

I don't like to focus on wild guesses, such as missile hitting the Pentagon or even remote-controlled airliners. We just don't know. I like to focus on the facts we do have.

I know for a fact WTC7 cannot come down like a controlled-demolition from fire when other buildings (ex. the Millennium Hitlon) are much closer to the debris field didn't fall or buildings next to WTC7 are perfectly fine. It's defies common sense.

If the towers were to collapse by fire, you would not see concrete get pulverized into powder. There just isn't enough force (gravity) to turn concrete into dust absents of explosive forces. The huge dust cloud we see spread for blocks and blocks are whate remains of concrete. In addition, these third buildings came down at free fall speeds. As if the pancake theory were a fact, then there would be resistance on each subsequent floors and the buildings would came down much slower than they did.

Why the buildings have to come down? Watch the 9/11 Mysteries film, it has more information. Basically, the buildings were a money-pit for the owner. WTC7 housed government agencies and classified materials, such as the SEC investigation into corporate frauds, such as Enron.

Who does not benefit?

Certainly not the supposedly terrorists. They could have killed well over 20,000+ people if they crashed the planes between 10-noon when occupancy is higher. After the planes crashed into the building, security is down, have operatives walk in and bombed stairways at the 10th floor, trapping people from getting out.

Arabs, women and children dying, their countries and homes get bombed

The men and women from poor backgrounds that volunteered to serve and protect their country and the US Constitution. Instead they are tricked to fight for the benefits of the wealthy elites.

The American people.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

The war in Iraq and war on terror is over a $1 trillion. We are stay in Iraq 10, 15, who knows how many more years. Where do the government get the money? They get a check from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve issues the money out of thin air. The average American working taxpayers and future generations are paying for the it. The taxes goes to pay the debt (principal + compounding interest). The money goes to the megabanks.

The military-industrial complex benefits. Big Oil benefits. Multi-national corporations like Halliburton, DynCorp benefit.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
To what purpose would I need to demolition the WTC?


To begin the next stage in your plan to invoke the anti-christ and destroy America.

You would need people who believed in what they were doing with thier last dying breath.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
To begin the next stage in your plan to invoke the anti-christ and destroy America.
[edit on 22-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]


What do you mean?

Are you saying a member of Islam is the Anti-Christ?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There were many interests involved in blowing the three WTC skyscrapers. Building 7 went down with much incriminating evidence against major groups like CitiGroup, Enron, etc., that would have otherwise come up in court cases against the giants and potentially exposed some scandals that could very well have crashed the US economy (and dwarved any 9/11 conspiracy), but that's a completely separate subject, tying in with the way banks operate and manipulate money, and I'm not as familiar with that material as I am with 9/11. Virtually everything in Building 7 belonged to either banks or the government (CIA, IRS, etc.), and it also housed an incredibly reinforced bunker built for Giuliani, with a grand view of the rest of WTC Complex.

bsbray:

Thank you for your detailed answer. Here's some additionqal points.
In today's business world, destroying infrastructure very likely would fail to get rid of "incriminating evidence" by any stretch of the imagination. Institutions like Citi and Enron are basically electronically driven, and documents would have redundancy if not downright perpetuity amongst servers and databases spread throughout the country. The WTC destruction did not change the fact that Enron collapsed under the weight of its scandal just over a year later.

The only one I will concede as being suspicious is WTC7, and that's because I would think the CIA would want to wipe out its offices to prevent foreign infiltrators from roaming around an area where stunned and distraught security forces would probably not be up to protecting the offices.



Larry Silverstein, who took out a lease on the Towers and Building 7 shortly before 9/11 (I suspect with the upcoming events in mind), served to gain from the insurance policies he took out on them (doubly so on the Towers), and the buildings did not have to have asbestos removed (which would cost more than the Towers were worth) or be deconstructed because of structural aging (which would have come up in a decade or so anyway, and would also cost much more than they were worth). Demolition would have been less expensive, but probably also not allowed because of potential damage to so many surrounding structures. It was a major financial problem the owners would eventually have to face.


I have been a business reporter for a long time, and more specifically, covering commercial real estate. I can tell you that a) the WTC's asbestos issue was "grandfathered" and there was no compelling need to remove it. Plus there are degrees of removal that would have been conducted short of such a drastic cleansing you describe. Costs? Sure, they would have been significant, but nothing that you would have been unable to pass onto your tenants or receive in Federal environmental tax breaks.



Psychologically, the blow to kick off a new "Cold War" of sorts for the US military-industrial complex and related groups came with the collapses. The plane impacts caused some profanity and open-mouthed stares, but the collapses are what caused actual shock (post-traumatic stress disorder being reported for millions of Americans after 9/11), and some blood-curdling screams you can pick out in some collapse videos. It was horrific to see them fall as they did, and seemed totally counter-intuitive physically, doubly reinforcing that schema-shattering effect they produced on us all, even if only subconsciously. Those directly involved had severe emotional trauma to work through. The world changed after those collapses, and that was exactly what was needed to kick off the new Orwellian mentality of giving up freedoms to chase these bad guys all over the Mid-East and abroad, country by country. Who could object after what had happened? Bush said we wouldn't stop with Afghanistan, and at the time, most of us were perfectly fine with that, even while understanding that this meant invading whole nations simply because of small cells of individuals using those nations.

Even with the total shock of the collapses, that mentality has not held up so well, and the Iraq War is so unpopular that I dare say any new war (without another 9/11!) will cause significant civil unrest. So, there are some of my thoughts.


I had time to reflect on my own question over the weekend, and I do very much see your point. The towers' destruction added to the profound impact on the entire calamity. And in basic psychological terms, it created a permanence in the American psyche, much like the permanence the Space Shuttle Challenger's explosion caused for my generation and Columbia's for, perhaps, this generation.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tazadar
The Manhattan Project involved thousands of people and the secret was kept well hidden from the public. So, it's not an impossibility.


Thanks as well tazadar for your response.

As for this point, I would have to say that's not entirely true. I do believe that during the later days of the project, just before the first tests, certain members of the media were becoming aware -- perhaps not to the full extent -- of the existence of the Manhattan Project. I even believe Time magazine had gotten enough info and was planning to run a story when the gov't asked its editors to hold off for national security reasons. Back then, there was practically no distrust of the U.S. gov't intrinsic as in today's modern media, so many reporters were willing to comply with such a request.



With 9/11, the full details of the conspiracy can be known just by a handful of people. It's all compartmentized. For example, the head of NORAD is given a memo (an order) to schedule exercises on 9/11/2001. He isn't given any more information than that. You might be a Lt. in charge of equiping and maintaining jet planes. You might receive an order to equip a 757 with remote-controlled capabilities. As a FEMA director, you receive an order for a terror drill for NYC on 9/10/2001. You aren't given any more information than that.


While I have no solid proof, I can tell you from just covering government for a few years that "orders" for exercises like that just don't come down from shadowy sources across some nondescript wire. They are planned, often by committee, who have lots of b.s. meeting to hash out the details. In short, many were involved in the planning of those exercizes.



I know for a fact WTC7 cannot come down like a controlled-demolition from fire when other buildings (ex. the Millennium Hitlon) are much closer to the debris field didn't fall or buildings next to WTC7 are perfectly fine. It's defies common sense.

As I stated earlier, I've read the commission's explanation and the conspiracy theorists explanation, and I have to admit that WTC7 is one of the most glaring discrepencies in the commission's argument. Although, when watching videos of the towers' collapse, you can see a very sizable chunk of the building does squarely hit WTC7, which could have arguably weakened its infrastructure.....



If the towers were to collapse by fire, you would not see concrete get pulverized into powder. There just isn't enough force (gravity) to turn concrete into dust absents of explosive forces. The huge dust cloud we see spread for blocks and blocks are whate remains of concrete. In addition, these third buildings came down at free fall speeds. As if the pancake theory were a fact, then there would be resistance on each subsequent floors and the buildings would came down much slower than they did.


Remember, concrete is an aggregate and while strong in its solid form, it doesn't take much force to render it pulverized. It wasn't just gravity, but pressure from extreme freefall, and the churining of materials during said freefall.



Why the buildings have to come down? Watch the 9/11 Mysteries film, it has more information. Basically, the buildings were a money-pit for the owner. WTC7 housed government agencies and classified materials, such as the SEC investigation into corporate frauds, such as Enron.


Again, during the Enron trial prosecutors never said that the WTC hindered their investigation into Enron (believe me, they would have if they could have used that excuse). And the SEC, compelled by law to disclose investigations or "inquiries" into corporate activities, never indicated an investigation died because of a loss of evidence. The corporate world is just too electronic for information to disappear in a building collapse.



Certainly not the supposedly terrorists. They could have killed well over 20,000+ people if they crashed the planes between 10-noon when occupancy is higher. After the planes crashed into the building, security is down, have operatives walk in and bombed stairways at the 10th floor, trapping people from getting out.

Again, back to my original point; it wouldn't matter if it was 8 a.m., noon or 5 p.m., it was the act that shocked.



The war in Iraq and war on terror is over a $1 trillion. We are stay in Iraq 10, 15, who knows how many more years. Where do the government get the money? They get a check from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve issues the money out of thin air. The average American working taxpayers and future generations are paying for the it. The taxes goes to pay the debt (principal + compounding interest). The money goes to the megabanks.

The military-industrial complex benefits. Big Oil benefits. Multi-national corporations like Halliburton, DynCorp benefit.


Yes and no. The Fed's job is to regulate money, and since the 1980's, really has been focused on preventing inflation. Making money out of "thin air" is, I suppose, acurate in a basic sense, but what they are really doing is regulating currency. The "debt," by that I'm assuming you mean the national debt, is different from the Fed making money -- which in reality is the Treasury's job. The national debt is the total output and exports of our country minus the total input and imports of our country. That number, plus or minus, is the national debt.

That's why, among some financial academics, the national debt is not as huge a concern. In the long run, America's debt shrinks and grows depending on activity, and there's a very strong argument to be made that our reliance on imports brings in cheaper goods than could be made domestically, and hence is healthy for the average American family trying to keep their budget in control.

The real problem with "national debt" is more perception about the value and worth of the actual dollar. As we owe more to countries (i.e. paying for China's imports), more dollars are "created." With American's tab in the trillons of dollars, other countries are in effect funding everybody's credit cards.

But in the end, they wouldn't do that if they didn't have confidence in our system or the dollar. And despite evreything, the dollar is still considered worldwide the safest and more transparent investment in the world. Yes, even more than the Euro.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join