I remember hearing this not long after the attack. There is just so much conflicting information out there that I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't necessarily believe that this is any kind of proof of a controlled demolition, mainly because I don't necessarily believe that the people quoted in the article were completely responsibile for the attack.

Interesting - because I've been saying for years that no-one expected the buildings to collapse. Not the authorities, not the owners of the WTC, not those responsible for the attacks.

Now, whether that means it was a construction or design fault (the conspiracy no one wants to address!), whether it was just an unforeseen consequence, or whether nuclear bombs or photon torpedoes from the Starship Enterprise brought the towers down, I don't know.

Originally posted by Essan
Now, whether that means it was a construction or design fault (the conspiracy no one wants to address!),

ya know, i could, and have, totally consider this a possibility.

a lot of the engineer types will talk about safety factors etc, but the fact of the matter is that it always comes down to the dollar. if the contractors could get parts of it done on time and under budget they get bigger bonus' etc. so yeah, theres something i could totally consider as a plausibility.

I'll have to stop back later and inquire of "Damocles" insight, but I have to agree that the design of the Twin Towers may have been flawed. As I understand it, they were built to withstand sever blows on all sides, but not from the top town. So when the floors began to "pancake" onto themselves, the buildings became their own worst enemy.

As I stated above, I am back "on the fence" with regard to the controlled demolition theory, but here are some of my thoughts. First, al-Qaeda probably had no knowledge of this design flaw in the towers. Second, there probably were people right here in the US that were aware of this weakness in the design. Third, that information may have been passed on to the "x-faction" who then directed a false-flag attack on the WTC by proxy.

Lastly, there is the extremely remote possibility that the towers were built in such a way intentionally. Meaning that the conspiracy runs back as far as the 1970's. It is possible, as unlikely as it sounds, that this secret cabal may have built-in this flaw as a "trump-card" in case they ever had need of a spectacular false-flag attack. Specifically, the WTC may have been slated to be sacrificed from the start, as part of the long-term orchestration to bring about NWO. As unbelievable as this may sound, it should at least be left as a possiblity. I'll end here for the moment with a pertinent quote:

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan (media guru)

[edit on 12/12/0707 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 12/12/0707 by jackinthebox]

Well frankly I'm going to be honest with you - I didn't think buildings would collapse, either. (When the planes hit the towers that is)

The WTC twin towers were one of the first so called "modern" or "light
weight" structures built. This was a design movement in the 1960's to
use engineered steel to replace much of the concrete in buildings
(which is heavy and expensive). Pressure was used by architects and
construction types to relax the fire codes - the 1938 code required steel
columns be encased in several inches of concrete or masonary. When
the WTC was designed and built the code required only 2 hours fire
resistance (vs 4 hr in earlier) and allowed any materials that could give
the required time. Hence 2 pieces of 5/8" sheet rock used to provide fire
resistance Steel web truss was used to support floors vs solid steel I
beams. The truss had 1/2" in or so of sprayed -on fire proofing vs
concrete. The aircraft impacts scraped off the fire proofing. You can kick
a hole in sheet rock or peel off the sprayed on - try that with concrete.

As with any new design there are always problems which surface later -
assumptions made don't always work as planned and unforseen problems
are revealed. That said buildings are not designed (short of an under
ground bunker) to resist impacts of fully loaded jet aircraft at 500mph.

The new WTC 7 (which opened in 2006) was reinforced based on what
happened on 9/11

Here is short blurb on new design features

The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S.[56] According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction".[57] The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts.[58] The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.[58] Steel columns are encased in much thicker fire protection, which consists of a medium-density, portland cement-based product that adheres well to the steel columns, among other advantages over alternate types of spray-applied fire-resistive material.[59

The "theory" or more correctly ravings that the buildings were designed
to fail 30 years later as part of some conspiracy is absurd.
sheet roo

Originally posted by thedman
The "theory" or more correctly ravings that the buildings were designed
to fail 30 years later as part of some conspiracy is absurd.
sheet roo

id have to agree with that. personally it would never have crossed my mind that they were built with the intention to fail at some later date when subjected to a predetermined event doesnt make sense to me.

what DOES make sense to me is that maybe the contractor was offered a bonus for coming in ahead of schedule or at the least on time (delays are part of business for these guys) and/or under budget.

so, maybe some shortcuts were taken that didnt comprimise the integrity of the building under normal circumstances but throw something unforseen into the mix and.....

I am not necessarily endorsing a far-out theory that the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was in fact planned from the time the buldings were designed and built, though I do leave the possiblity open to discussion.

I would find it much more likely that these design flaws were discovered later, and exploited by the unknown faction.

What I am most concerned about at this point is that al-Qaeda did not intend to provoke a response greater than having a few cruise missiles tossed at them. Therefore, it calls into doubt that they were responsible, even accidentally, for the entire scope of the 9/11 attacks. Flying planes into the Towers would certainly have been enough of a "wake up" call to fulfill their objective.

Were they perhaps planning another sort of attack, but "steered" toward hitting the Towers? Furthermore, I do not believe that WTC-7 collapsed as a result of the planes flying into the Towers, even indirectly. Lastly, they probably would not have dared to hit the Pentagon unless they did intend to provoke the response which they suffered. There is little evidence to support that a plane hit the Pentagon anyway.

The 9/11 commision report states that fir chiefs were only conserned with the upper floors above the fires migh collapse IF the fire would have burned for several more hours (which they did not)

From the 9/11 commission report, staff statment 13, page 20

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I would like to point out that, when this happened, I was not at all surprised to learn both towers had collapsed. Buildings are simply not designed to have planes flown into them. Plain and simple. Tower + impact + structural damage + fire = collapse of said tower.

But, the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" does come in when we start analyzing the construction of the tower. Its original designs call for an all-welded structure. This was sacrificed for the sake of time and bolts were used, instead.... AND the bolts were further lowered in diameter to save on materials (cost).

Further digging yields that the structure would likely have been condemned in another few years because of the way that bolts rapidly degrade over time. The relative size of the structure shares a near exponential relationship to the rate at which the structure degrades (if it's bigger - it usually degrades MUCH faster).

This is a problem that has been plaguing industry for a while. It's the "American accountant" outlook on business. It's about looking to the next quarter for gains, meeting minimum specifications, and the lowest bidder wins out. I can have two ball bearings - one has tension springs in it, the other does not.... but the one without tension springs costs half as much.... so that's what our engineers will have to work with. Even though the one with tension springs will last five times as long and maintain its accuracy and quality through its lifespan... unlike the cheap-o solution.

We've been making huge strides forward in computer technology, but taking leaps backwards in business and industrial philosophies. We look to the next quarter for gains. If we don't see them, we massacre customer support (that's just an expense), eliminate 'less popular' products, and start ignoring the engineers who want the slightly more expensive solution (we're accountants - we know what works in the machine better, anyway).

If you want a man behind the curtain to send Toto after - you can start with that one while you continue your search for other men behind their curtains.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Same concept, here. While the total force exerted on the structure in heavy winds is far greater than that of the airliner - it is distributed across the entire surface of the structure and successfully countered by each level of supports. A plane is not only much harder than air - it also has much more concentrated mass and velocity - meaning it is going to cause damage to the structure.

But the point is the evidence still states the planes did not cause enough damage to cause the collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Aim64C
Same concept, here. While the total force exerted on the structure in heavy winds is far greater than that of the airliner - it is distributed across the entire surface of the structure and successfully countered by each level of supports. A plane is not only much harder than air - it also has much more concentrated mass and velocity - meaning it is going to cause damage to the structure.

But the point is the evidence still states the planes did not cause enough damage to cause the collapse.

The plane impacts did not, but the plane impact also started the fires, which then started a chain of events that led to the collapse. This is what the official reports state.