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.

 

Starting from the Beginning

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Now, to be honest with you guys and gals, I've never particularly cared whether the twin towers were brought down by planes, cruise missiles, thermite, mini-nukes, or illegal immigrants with hacksaws.

I've always found it sufficient to know that the government had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to bring down the WTC, moreso than any terrorist group acting alone.

The timing was incredibly fortunate for Bush- it played right into the long-stated agenda of the people behind him.
The actions of Al Qaida since then have been inconsistent with a true enemy, as I noted a while back in a thread entitled, "Al Qaida, the obliging adversary".
They told us that Bin Laden thought it would bring down our economy- but does that really make any sense? This was not some dirt dumb camel herder. He's from a very wealthy family- they know how money works. But he somehow thought that the whole US Economy would go down with those buildings? Seriously.


So assuming that one already believes it was an inside job, and needs to know how it was done in order to prove to others it was an inside job, let's try developing a hypothesis to test instead of randomly sifting through mountains of data looking for something suspicious.

I ask myself how I would bring down the towers if I was in league with the PNAC.

Well the first rule of mischief is that you break as few rules and tell as few lies as you possibly can. Every crooked point in a plan requires more investment of effort to cover up, and can never be fully covered.

So my parameters:
1. Use real terrorists. It saves you effort on blaming terrorists.
2. Use those terrorists in a capacity that is believable for terrorists.
3. If you have to provide help to them to make it big enough, simplicity is essential.
3A. Do it with a minimum of time and equipment.
3B. Do it with a minimum of manpower, and avoid using people who are smart enough to figure out what's going on- simple means that can be set up quickly by unskilled people.
4. Make sure your helping action will produce affects which can be explained by the real terrorist attack, at least on the surface.


That rules out a controlled demolition. You need smart people and a lot of time for that.

So what could I possibly do that will be simple fast, will do something I can claim is similar to a jet, and preferably will be automatically triggered by the actual terrorist attack?

Well i'm reminded of the episode of Myth Busters where they recreated the Hindenberg with a thermite dope, and it won't take nearly as long engineering a demolition, drilling the right places, running wires, hiding charges, etc etc.

Any schmuck who doesn't know what he's applying can spread goop. All you have to do to ignite it is expose it to sufficient heat.


So I'd probably start my search for evidence by looking at any upgrades of insulation, fire proofing, new flooring, etc etc- anything where not much question would have been given to workmen laying down some kind of dope and then covering it over.


You're sharp people, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some of you have already looked into it. I'm not trying to say I've got the answer or question anybody- I'm just saying that this would be my starting point- and for that matter I suppose is my starting point since I haven't really paid much mind to this particular subject in the past.
So? Possible hits? Holes in the idea?




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Several people who worked in the WTC reported strange construction activity on empty floors prior to the "event". Unprecedented power downs of the building were also reported by people who worked there, this allows for obvious breaches of security. It has also been reported that bomb sniffing dogs and other security measures were pulled back just prior to the "event".

A little Googling and I'm sure you'll be able to find the associated videos.

Think Hollywood

They most likely did use real terrorist , real planes and all that stuff. But they also knew that this really wouldn't be enough to bring the towers down. Pyrotechnics stage right. So a bit before hand they weaken security at WTC and send in some trusted folks to do some "repairs".

It's important to know that most of the people involved may very well have had no clue that this was an inside job.

For example the people doing the "construction" at the WTC may have thought it was real construction, the terrorist may have thought they were really working for OBL, and so on.



Well the first rule of mischief is that you break as few rules and tell as few lies as you possibly can.


This rule applies to you and I but not so much to big government. There is example after example where the government has perpetrated a fraud on the people, taken relatively weak steps to cover their tracks and not been busted. Why ? Because they know the majority of the mass media is in their pocket. It's not important that 10% won't tow your line, it's only important that the other 90% will say whatever you wish ad infinitum.

Controlled demolition can not be ruled out

People in the sub basement levels of the WTC reported massive explosions. If this isn't part of a controlled demolition I don't know what is.

Think Enron

Enron was a huge accounting scandal involving thousands of people and a "new" method of accounting. This went of for years without a single whistle blower coming froward to expose the lie (until closer to the end).

How could this be ?

Simple. Most people thought they were just doing their job, they simply did as they always do and faithfully executed their duties. Same goes for 9/11. Most people involved in the conspiracy likely had no clue as to the bigger picture, they are not part of the lie they are merely gears in the machine.

Think Iraq

The US govt started diverting resources to Iraq far before it was declared we were going to war with them. Like Enron this required thousands of people yet for the most part it was never brought to the publics attention.

Think Iran

Right now the US at large worries about war with Iran. I have no doubt we are already at war with Iran. Special forces behind enemy lines, sabotage and other war actions are already taking place. Thousands of people are involved yet the public goes on mainly unaware.

Think Pearl Harbor

The events leading up to Pearl Harbor practically forced Japans hand to attack us and this was no mistake. FDR knew the only way to enter the war was to force Japan to attack first so we could claim "defense". In the events leading up to Pearl Harbor thousands of people were part of the machinery that slowly led up to the attack from Japan. No one rushed to the news papers and said "oh god we're forcing their hand !".

Massive conspiracies are possible with thousands of people involved because most people don't see the big picture of their function. They are merely reading radar, doing repairs, filing paperwork and so on and so forth.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond Any schmuck who doesn't know what he's applying can spread goop. All you have to do to ignite it is expose it to sufficient heat. So? Possible hits? Holes in the idea?


Sure any schmuck can spread goop. Let’s calculate how much goop would have been needed to level just one WTC. As previously estimated many a times in numerous posts here on ATS, approximately 12,300 U. S. tons of trinitrotoluene would have been needed per tower to produce the observed effects.

Assuming TNT weighs 8 lbs per gallon (I’m guessing), then 509 drums at 55 gallons each would have been necessary per floor – on all 110 of them – to blow ‘em up. That’s A LOT of material to apply. It would have taken quite a number of doofuses to put that much product down. Anyone up to that kind of task would have re-defined the axiom of weak minds and strong backs.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Yes, but that's TNT. I'm not talking about blowing the building down. I'm asking about the possibility of using a limited amount of well placed thermite dope to weaken things up. Afterall, crashing a jet into the building is bound to account for some amount of the fireworks, it's not as if you to pack the building with enough explosives to do the whole thing.

Not even to mention the simple sanity-check of it. 12.3 kiltons of TNT? Forgive me but I seem to have missed the mushroom cloud, and the subsequent destruction of several city blocks.

Pardon my ignorance but I honestly am at a loss for which of the observed effects (a modest fireball, a building burning for a while and then falling down, and a big cloud of dust at that point) would require nearly as much energy as the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Vagabond, what makes you think that Osama targeted the Towers to take down the U.S. Economy completely? Who is They that told you that Osama expected that the U.S. economy would collapsed on those attacks? Remember that Osama's Fatwa mentions attacking the U.S. Economy whenever possible to make us suffer. He never said it would take down the economy just by hitting a couple of buildings.


www.pbs.org...

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.




[edit on 7-8-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
then falling down, and a big cloud of dust


The "cloud of dust" part is accurate enough enough the "falling down" part is a bit off. Almost all (>~80%) of the heavy structural mass in both buildings was hurled outwards with great force, out of the footprints of the buildings and all over the WTC complex, and explosives don't do that. Neither does simply "falling down" for such a building, at least for a "pancake collapse" and not something started lower down to where more of the building could tilt. Pancake collapses require the mass to fall downwards.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Unfortunately the only source I've been able to find all the way back to 2001 is World Net Daily- they had the common decency to frame it as speculation, and are far from my favorite source.
Six year old articles from major news sites can be hard to come by though.
At this point (though I'll continue looking) I have only recollection to offer on FNC's jabbering to that effect back in 2001.

Bush picked up that ball to run with it and never did put it down. He's been misinterpreting the "bleed to bankruptcy" strategy all along.

www.whitehouse.gov...


Bin Laden concludes from this experience that "America is definitely a great power, with… unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation." He went on to say, "Therefore, it is very easy to target the flimsy base and concentrate on their weak points, and even if we're able to target one-tenth of these weak points, we will be able [to] crush and destroy them."



But as per usual with Bush, he's picking and choosing his truths. The Bin Laden strategy was never actually that he could destroy a few buildings and our economy would collapse- but that with such attacks he could provoke us into self-destructive actions- the very self destructive actions that the Bush administration has infact been pursuing.

www.house.gov...

My point in this is that Al Qaida has been misrepresented to us as being about one thing, because if that were not done it would be evident that Al Qaida and President Bush both share the exact same vision for how America should be acting, and if the convencience of Al Qaida's actions in the war on terror are considered, apparently that also applies to a shared vision of what Al Qaida should be doing.

And when we find ourselves in a spot where Al Qaida's real strategy is to act in ways that give President Bush a reason to do exactly what he wants to do, and Bush and any media loyal to him are trying to obscure that truth, we face a real question of whether or not the US had any less motive to perpetrate these attacks than Al Qaida itself.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So I'd probably start my search for evidence by looking at any upgrades of insulation, fire proofing, new flooring, etc etc- anything where not much question would have been given to workmen laying down some kind of dope and then covering it over.


I have tried.


NYC Department of Buildings

Permits In-Process / Issued by Premises

Page: 1 of 1

Premises: 1 WORLD TRADE CENTER MANHATTAN BIN: 1081988 Block: 58 Lot: 1

NUMBER JOB TYPE SEQ NO ISSUED DATE EXPIRATION DATE STATUS APPLICANT NAME
103027626-01-EQ SH A3 - ALT3 01 11/21/2001 04/01/2002 ISSUED UDDIN MD TOHFAZ
102951922-01-EQ SH A3 - ALT3 02 04/18/2001 05/01/2002 ISSUED BLINN GLENN
102265362-01-AL A3 - ALT3 01 09/10/2002 05/13/2003 ISSUED AHERN MICHAEL
100418745-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 05/18/1992 08/15/1992 ISSUED HENEGAN DANIEL


3 permits listed pre 9/11 for WTC 1. They are:

Minor partition changes on the 39th floor and 2 sidewalk sheds.


NYC Department of Buildings
Property Profile Overview
NO PREVIOUSLY ISSUED PERMITS FOUND FOR THIS PROPERTY

2 WORLD TRADE CENTER MANHATTAN 10048 BIN# 1081984


No previous permits found for WTC 2?


NYC Department of Buildings

Permits In-Process / Issued by Premises

Page: 1 of 1

Premises: 7 World Trade Center (2 West Broadway) BIN: 1086510 Block: 84 Lot: 36

NUMBER JOB TYPE SEQn NO ISSUED DATE EXPIRATION DATE STATUS
APPLICANT NAME
104309990-01-EQ SF A3 - ALT3 01 03/22/2006 04/01/2007 ISSUED DEL MASTRO THOMAS
103534819-01-EQ OT A3 - ALT3 02 03/25/2004 12/31/2004 ISSUED KARAS GREG
100057974-01-EQ SH A3 - ALT3 01 06/13/1990 08/19/1990 ISSUED JAZWIECKI SIGMUND
100057938-01-EQ SF A3 - ALT3 01 06/15/1990 08/19/1990 ISSUED JAZWIECKI SIGMUND
1P0004195-01- 01 09/07/1990 09/07/1991 ISSUED BLINN GLENN
1P0001528-01- 01 04/27/1990 12/31/1990 ISSUED HEYDT MARK
1P0000990-01- 01 04/16/1990 04/01/1991 ISSUED HEYDT MARK


Notice there are 7 prior to 9/11. All of which are construction and pedestrian sheds.

Why no permits listed?

Here's another building I have been on.


NYC Department of Buildings

Permits In-Process / Issued by Premises

Page: 1 of 7

Premises: 1492 BROADWAY MANHATTAN BIN: 1022610 Block: 996 Lot: 1

NUMBER JOB TYPE SEQ NO ISSUED DATE EXPIRATION DATE STATUS
APPLICANT NAME
104858496-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 08/07/2007 12/01/2007 ISSUED MONAHAN PATRICK
104823336-01-EQ SH A3 - ALT3 01 07/16/2007 05/01/2008 ISSUED BLINN GREG
104645369-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 02/06/2007 02/06/2008 ISSUED TEICH MARK
104645369-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 01/22/2007 09/30/2007 ISSUED ZIEGLER WALTER
104645369-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 01/22/2007 09/30/2007 ISSUED ZIEGLER WALTER
104645350-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 04/12/2007 04/11/2008 ISSUED MCMAHON BRIAN
104587868-01-AL A1 - ALT1 01 10/19/2006 01/24/2007 ISSUED BORRICO MICHAEL
104512895-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 08/31/2006 08/31/2007 ISSUED TEICH MARK
104512895-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 08/09/2006 12/01/2006 ISSUED MONAHAN PATRICK
104488396-01-SG SG - SIGN 01 08/24/2006 06/30/2007 ISSUED BRAOWN DAVID
104479707-01-EW FP A2 - ALT2 01 07/11/2006 02/04/2007 ISSUED MITAROTONDA FRANK
104460959-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 06/23/2006 06/23/2007 ISSUED LEVINE LAWRENCE
104460940-01-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 10/19/2006 01/24/2007 ISSUED BORRICO MICHAEL
104448386-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 08/24/2006 08/24/2007 ISSUED MCGOWAN TORIN
104439298-01-EQ SH A2 - ALT2 01 05/24/2006 12/31/2006 ISSUED BORRICO MICHAEL
104421724-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 06/22/2006 06/22/2007 ISSUED ABBATE ROCCO
104421680-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 06/23/2006 06/23/2007 ISSUED BRESLAW RICHARD
104421680-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 02 07/20/2006 08/04/2007 ISSUED PHILLIPS TODD
104421680-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 02 07/20/2006 08/04/2007 ISSUED PHILLIPS TODD
104333393-01-PL A2 - ALT2 01 06/23/2006 06/23/2007 ISSUED LEVINE LAWRENCE
104333384-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 01/24/2006 06/29/2006 ISSUED SHAH ARTIE
104332063-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 02/14/2006 02/14/2007 ISSUED DELORENZO ALFRED
104330582-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 01/19/2006 01/19/2007 ISSUED O'CONNOR KIERAN
104330582-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 01/13/2006 06/04/2006 ISSUED DUGGAN PAT
104330582-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 01/13/2006 06/04/2006 ISSUED DUGGAN PAT
104310657-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 05/12/2006 01/24/2007 ISSUED BORRICO MICHAEL
104289084-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 12/15/2005 12/15/2006 ISSUED TEWARI OM PRAKASH
104289075-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 11/29/2005 11/29/2006 ISSUED BRESLAW RICHARD
104289075-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 11/17/2005 08/04/2006 ISSUED PHILLIPS TODD
104289075-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 11/17/2005 08/04/2006 ISSUED PHILLIPS TODD
104254637-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 10/11/2005 06/04/2006 ISSUED O'SULLIVAN WILLIA
104242516-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 11/14/2005 11/14/2006 ISSUED TEICH MARK
104242516-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 09/30/2005 12/01/2005 ISSUED MONAHAN PATRICK
104242516-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 09/30/2005 12/01/2005 ISSUED MONAHAN PATRICK
104242516-01-EQ FN A2 - ALT2 01 09/30/2005 12/01/2005 REISSUED MONAHAN PATRICK
104200892-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 06/06/2006 06/06/2007 ISSUED DELORENZO ALFRED
104200856-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 01 08/17/2005 06/04/2006 ISSUED DUGGAN PTA
104200856-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 08/17/2005 06/04/2006 ISSUED DUGGAN PTA
104191795-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 09/27/2005 09/27/2006 ISSUED MCGOWAN TORIN
104185891-01-PL A2 - ALT2 01 08/25/2005 08/25/2006 ISSUED KELLY JOHN
104185891-01-EW MH A2 - ALT2 02 08/08/2005 08/15/2006 ISSUED BEDFORD LUCY
104185882-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 02 08/08/2005 08/15/2006 ISSUED BEDFORD LUCY
104108010-01-EQ SH A3 - ALT3 01 05/19/2005 12/31/2006 ISSUED BUETTNER KENNETH
104065547-01-EW SP A2 - ALT2 01 06/01/2005 06/01/2006 ISSUED KAUFMAN MICHAEL
104053907-03-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 03/11/2005 08/31/2005 ISSUED PATTERSON MARK
104053907-02-PL A2 - ALT2 01 03/25/2005 03/25/2006 ISSUED KAUFMAN MICHAEL
104053907-02-EW MH A2 - ALT2 02 09/15/2005 08/31/2006 ISSUED PATTERSON MARK
104053907-01-EW OT A2 - ALT2 01 03/11/2005 08/31/2005 ISSUED PATTERSON MARK
104015520-01-SG SG - SIGN 01 02/10/2005 06/30/2005 ISSUED BROWN DAVID
104015502-01-AL A3 - ALT3 01 02/10/2005 11/01/2005 ISSUED BROWN DAVID

1P0000628-01- 02 09/11/1990 09/01/1991 ISSUED BLINN GLENN
1P0000577-01- 01 04/09/1990 09/10/1990 ISSUED BLINN GLENN


That's one of seven pages. This building was built in 1972 around the time of the towers. 7 pages of permits compared to 3 permits for WTC 1 and 0 for WTC 2? Something's not right.

BTW, nice OP.

Edit: Source: www.nyc.gov...

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
And it can't be said that the towers just didn't have much going on, because a construction worker named Philip Morelli was interviewed for being knocked around in the basement during the impacts, and he said at first he just thought heavy equipment was being moved around upstairs, because the towers, he said, were constantly under some kind of construction. In fact, his very presence there on September 11th, as a construction worker, must mean they were doing something they should've had a permit for, for or through the 11th of September, 2001, right?

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Cause for applause Griff. The resources you guys bring to bear in this forum always impress me.

And NO permits in WTC2???
I would have expected suspiciously few, but none? That gives me a lot of pause. You're the one who understands this stuff- could you brainstorm up any kind of reason that most applications wouldn't require the same permitting process? Some sort of jursidictional thing, or a simple matter of don't bother the rich people? Some sort of secrecy policy post '93? Anything?


Bsbray11: I get what you're saying. Unfortunately the title "operating engineer" is a misnomer- in fact most of the problems I faced in my trade stemmed from a tendency to operate before I engineered... so I just don't have the foggiest clue what it would take to force that debris outwards.

I can try to model it in my head and probably be wrong, but I'll go ahead and try because I like to talk.

If I try to visualize a large steal structure sticking straight up, and I want to keep it from folding inward under the weight of the things its attatched to and ending up in a pile in the buildings footprint, I'd want to cause it to bend in the center, forcing the top of it out, while separating it from other peices.

I think we're talking a little more precise than just randomly spread thermite there. In my minds eye, I could see heat doing it, but it would have to be strategically placed, and not in places that are necessarily accessible.

Thoughts on that from those who've studied more?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
And NO permits in WTC2???
I would have expected suspiciously few, but none? That gives me a lot of pause. You're the one who understands this stuff- could you brainstorm up any kind of reason that most applications wouldn't require the same permitting process? Some sort of jursidictional thing, or a simple matter of don't bother the rich people? Some sort of secrecy policy post '93? Anything?


The only thing I can think of is that it was owned by the Port Authority. But, when Silverstein bought them, there should be at least a couple from around that time. One would think. Especially, as BsBray pointed out, there was actual construction happening on 9/11.

But, one of the permits from WTC 1 is from 1992. That is definately before Silverstein bought them, so I guess that rules that out.


Thoughts on that from those who've studied more?


My contention is that taking out the core in some way would have at least produced the initiating collapse (at the impact zones).



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Well instead of spreading thermate goop throughout the towers, I think they wired the towers with fibre-optic cables (using your unknowing peons, making the installation look like just another layer of such cables in a complex filled with it already), planted the actual charges with small dedicated teams, and blew it with this new CD technology, patented in March of 2001.

Here's the thread that explains it: Hi-tech, fool-proof CD exists, and here's the patent

Note the thread is also debunker-free.




[edit on 8-8-2007 by gottago]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Note the thread is also debunker-free.


Because it's not on their "debunking for dumbies" list.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Or on "screwloosechange".



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Now, I'm not a debunker, but the lack of debunkers may be because its just a rehash of all the same things we've heard over and over again. Nothing against the OP, but the only thing that could really count as "new" is Griff's efforts. Which were superb by the way, gold star for you Griff, that was excellent



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
gold star for you Griff, that was excellent


Thanks. Just another piece of the puzzle.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I like the idea of not using too many 'smart' people.
but IF the towers fell due to explosives, thermite or 'dope' it had to of been 'timed' or atleast daisy chained to initiate at the precise moment.

The towers fell from the top down, it wasnt a sychronized thing, so some sort of timing , or panel was used to ensure what ever triggered the structure to fail, failed floor by floor, top to bottom.

If heat melted the top, the bottom should of held it up. The towers held up all that weight for all those decades.. why did it fail now?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Reality Hurts,

I agree Griff has figured out a major piece of the puzzle, but why don't you look at the OP regarding fibre optics before pooh-poohing it. This is how they laid the charges without the debunkers' claims of massive invasiveness, wires everywhere, etc.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I've read your thread in the past. Viable theory, but it suffers the same fate as the other.

Regardless of the "How", there is the "who" and the "what"-The "how" is how they theoretically might have done it. The "what" covers the material itself, regardless of what type it might be. And then there is the "Who".

The "Who" is the weakest link in the chain. Fiberoptics, don't have consciences, they don't feel guilty, they don't get drunk, they don't talk in their sleep, they don't confide in their spouses, they don't share secrets with their siblings, and they don't get disillusioned and talk to the press. People do.

And even if they haven't spoken up yet, here is something else- Optopyrotechnic Demolition is a new and obviously rare type of operation. Again, we go back to "how many people on Earth" are capable of a) Designing the operation, b) Managing the instillation or cables, c) Assurance of completed work, and d) Physical, and nearly simultaneous, demolition of two sister skyscrapers?

How long can that list be? Not long. And yes, it is conceivable that they just hired contractors to lay cable, however, how often does your average union cable guy screw something up? Hell, I've had my Comcast to my house maybe a dozen times in the last 5 years. Someone needs to handle the Quality Assurance aspect, on site, over and over again. Could they also have gone in as a contractor? Yup, but these guys are "short list" people. maybe 5 people in the world.

Who are they? Where are they? What were they doing in the 2 weeks leading up to 9/11? If you sincerely subscribe to your own theory, than those are the questions you should be asking. Those are the people you need to find. Those are the people that you need to have verify their whereabouts through credit card record and cell phone records.

The other problem here is that you have a simple low-tech, feasible theory that you're trying to discredit with a high-tech, complicated theory. Now ask yourself, objectively of course, which theory is more likely, the simple one or your theory?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Griff's find is far and away the most compelling thing raised here so far.

I'm sure we've got somewhere around here somebody who knows a thing or two about the paper trails and red tape that would be associated with any work done on the trade center...

So how would we look into that further for confirmation and explanation (or lack thereof?).



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So how would we look into that further for confirmation and explanation (or lack thereof?).


This is where I draw a blank. I don't know who to contact. And seriously, I don't want to contact the PA for fear of being labled a terrorist or CT nut (no offense anyone). I know, sounds paranoid, but in my position, I can't afford to be labled a kook.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join