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.

 

Why a controlled demolition?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I have read and reviewed many of the arguements regarding a controlled demolition in both of the Twin Towers and ask the question; why was it necessary?

If one were to believe that a conspiracy was perpetrated that involved one or more of the following; prior-knowledge of the attack, holographic planes, cruise missles, directed energy weapons, remote controlled military aircraft, etc. Why was it then determined that once the attack occured a controlled demolition should then be applied to destroy the buildings? What would be the rationale in causing this to transpire? The attack was already successful in so much that hundreds of civilians were already killed and substantial damage inflicted on both the structures and our national ego.

I understand that many will give as their answer, ''To hide the evidence.'', but would it not be harder to hide the evidence of a controlled demolition once it has occured than to not have to have that concern at all? Debris was removed from the site during the cleanup and debris would have also been removed if the towers had not fallen at all. My feeling is it would have been much easier to hide any evidence if access was restricted to only the impact site instead of having material scattered over lower Manhattan.

If you are a believer in the attack being comitted as a flase flag would you not think the logical approach for any such enabling the attack would be to have the amount and nature of the personel 'investigating' the site strictly controlled? As an example:

You feel that a government controlled plane ladden with explosives struck the towers. People are killed, visceral images are projected around the world of fires buring, victims hurling themselves from the windows and overall destruction. The sentiment of national outrage is nearly unanimous, objective attained. You then need to hide evidence of this crime so you decide to implode both buildings.

Why? Would it not be easier to send a 'select' cleanup crew who can remove evidence of the fact that it was not a commercial airliner, all explosive residue and any other indicators that it was not actually committted by terrorists?

I do not understand the philosophy of the controlled demolition viewpoint, it seems to be massive overkill. If you were going to destroy the towers in this manner why not with everyone in it? Why allow any to escape and possibly reveal the hoax? The logicality of it does not seem to have any traction for me and there are too many questions that are raised in my opinion. Was there a cut-off for the amount of casulties; 3,000 is acceptable but 10,000 is not? Why allow anyone without clearance to approach the site? Why permit the possibility of incriminating evidence to possibly be discovered by a casual passer-by? I would appreciate anyone taking the opportunity to answer my questions and present their opinions of the situation and the points I raised.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


In May 2001, the PA lost its claims against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 Million in asbestos abatement costs. It could be argued by bringing the towers down, these costs would be avoided.

As a result of the towers being "brought down", one could also argue that instead of being faced with costly renovation and repairs financed from the owner's pocket, insurance claim money could be used to entirely rebuild the complex, due to being "brought down" by a terrorist attack. Obviously, if they didn't fall they'd still be covered - but the aging buildings would still have the asbestos problem and the payout considerably lower, maybe running into a deficit once asbestos abatement (not covered!) was factored in.

Another reason would be effect - buildings hit by a plane is bad, but does it warrant the actions following 9/11? By bringing down the towers, the impact on the public is magnified intensly, and subsequent actions much more likely to recieve public support than if they had remained standing and a lot less people (those above the damage, or first responders that died afterwards and are still dying) had died as a result.

You mention "to hide the evidence" - but I am not sure you have included the right evidence in your line of thought. WTC7 was home to some important evidence, like Enron's shady deals with Bin Laden and the Taliban, or the SEC. I agree "to hide the evidence" of a controlled demolition is not a reason to necessitate CD, but to hide the evidence of other things, like these, is a plausable reason to make CD a necessity.

To blow the towers with everyone in it would raise massive amounts of warranted questioning, and be so obviously a conspiracy on so many levels that it would be political suicide.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Another reason would be effect - buildings hit by a plane is bad, but does it warrant the actions following 9/11?


Strictly from my personal viewpoint I would have most likely had the same desire for retribution if the towers had not fallen. I base my decision on the first Trade Center attack and my sentiments at that time.


By bringing down the towers, the impact on the public is magnified intensly, and subsequent actions much more likely to recieve public support than if they had remained standing and a lot less people (those above the damage, or first responders that died afterwards and are still dying) had died as a result.


I concur to a degree. People were still violently killed and there were those who, much to my ongoing anger, not only did not know they were going to perish that day but actually had to decide what method they 'prefered' to succumb by. The video images of people hurtling themselves a quarter mile to their deaths is, in my feeling, enough of an outrage to incite public sentiment. Do you not think that if the towers had not fallen and people desired to propagandize the incident to further their own objectives they would have endlessly replayed these scenes?


You mention "to hide the evidence" - but I am not sure you have included the right evidence in your line of thought. WTC7 was home to some important evidence, like Enron's shady deals with Bin Laden and the Taliban, or the SEC. I agree "to hide the evidence" of a controlled demolition is not a reason to necessitate CD, but to hide the evidence of other things, like these, is a plausable reason to make CD a necessity.


Not to argue semantics with you, but you obviously are aware of this information so it was not hidden by any controlled demolition.


To blow the towers with everyone in it would raise massive amounts of warranted questioning, and be so obviously a conspiracy on so many levels that it would be political suicide.


Why? The original attackers of the towers had desired just such an outcome. One tower collapsing into the other and catastrophically wiping out 30,000 American citizens. Perhaps if the planning and execution of that assualt had been more thorough it might have evolved as they had anticipated. I do not recall much in the way of conspircacy in that endeavor, only hearing of the total ineptitude on the part of the persons involved.



[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The member above me pretty much summed it up, but ill try to sum it up in alot less words.

3000 people sounds alot better then 300 people when you are taking your country to war.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


You are only addressing avery small part of his reply and you are presupposing the total. There is no way to estimate the number of deaths that may or may not have occured if there was a controlled demolition after the impacts. I do not see how the deaths of the hundreds that were killed on the planes, by the impact thereof and from susbsequent related events could not have been used to rally the country to war. Obviously 3,000 deaths are more substantial but 300 is not a insignificant number. The only number that would be somewhat easy to arrive at is if there were a controlled demolition at the onset, then you can assume nearly a maximum amount of casulties.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Strictly from my personal viewpoint I would have most likely had the same desire for retribution if the towers had not fallen. I base my decision on the first Trade Center attack and my sentiments at that time.


Mine would probably be the same too. But the point would be, that those in control would assume (and quite rightly IMO), that a significant amount of people would desire more retribution, no matter how small the number it can only be seen as a bonus.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Do you not think that if the towers had not fallen and people desired to propagandize the incident to further their own objectives they would have endlessly replayed these scenes?


Hmm not sure what you mean here. But if you mean would replaying those scenes have had a similar effect, then yes I agree. But when you add any fuel to a fire, the fire gets worse, and the towers coming down that day was the ultimate seal, the final catalyst, encapsulating the events in one evil, fool swoop.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by adjay

You mention "to hide the evidence" - but I am not sure you have included the right evidence in your line of thought. WTC7 was home to some important evidence, like Enron's shady deals with Bin Laden and the Taliban, or the SEC.


Not to argue semantics with you, but you obviously are aware of this information so it was not hidden by any controlled demolition.


Quite right. But the important thing here is the cases that have been scrapped. These things were not hidden by controlled demolition, but the physical evidence was. To quote the second article "They'll have to scrap many cases, and start from scratch on others". We may know about parts of them now, but none of that passes in a court of law as evidence.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by adjay

To blow the towers with everyone in it would raise massive amounts of warranted questioning, and be so obviously a conspiracy on so many levels that it would be political suicide.


Why? The original attackers of the towers had desired just such an outcome. One tower collapsing into the other and catastrophically wiping out 30,000 American citizens. Perhaps if the planning and execution of that assualt had been more thorough it might have evolved as they had anticipated. I do not recall much in the way of conspircacy in that endeavor, only hearing of the total ineptitude on the part of the persons involved.


Because for the towers to just be blown, in the right places, causing a complete collapse ala 9/11, would be impossible by "Al Qaeda" without certain help. Security would stop something on this scale, given the appearance of Al Qaeda, the access required, the equipment needed and the amount of things being moved in and out. (to achieve a collapse where one tower falls into the other, ending with both towers landing on wall street, as was their wild "intention")

The intended outcome of the bombing you referred to never quite happened, for a number of reasons, and never really could have happened without a number of things as mentioned previously that weren't possible in the circumstances. Even if the FBI had swapped the explosive for something much more powerful (instead of the harmless powder they discussed) when they had the chance, but didn't, I doubt one tower would have toppled into the other.

More importantly, because they didn't just blow the towers is only proof that they did not just blow the towers, and nothing else.

[edit - tidied /quote]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by adjay]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
These things were not hidden by controlled demolition, but the physical evidence was.


This is were I have a difficult time digesting the conspiracy theory. If someone were to propose to me that the United States goverment disregarded or was somehow involved in the planning or execution of Spetmeber 11th I could at least follow the thoughts as plausible to my mind. For me to carry this equation further until it becomes: Government involvement --> planes strike buildings --> buildings collapse from controlled demolition in such a way as to fall on Number Seven thereby destroying evidence which is condsidered crucial to Enron and Bin Laden (among other cases), credulity of the theory is then lost with me.

Evidence can be manipulated and destroyed in a far simpler fashion as has been demonstrated at the executive level in other historical incidents i.e. Watergate and even after the Chief Executive leaves office, i.e. Sandy Berger.


To blow the towers with everyone in it would raise massive amounts of warranted questioning, and be so obviously a conspiracy on so many levels that it would be political suicide.


Are we not discussing questions regarding September 11th right now even though this did not occur? The theory of government knowledge or involvement has been posited from the very beginning. This is another instance where the uncertainty of a controlled demolition calls me to question the theory. Who is to say what the 'proper' amount of casulties are? What if a 'planned' attack actually stranded 10,000 people above the floors impacted, would the demolition have continued as 'planned'?


Because for the towers to just be blown, in the right places, causing a complete collapse ala 9/11, would be impossible by "Al Qaeda" without certain help. Security would stop something on this scale, given the appearance of Al Qaeda, the access required, the equipment needed and the amount of things being moved in and out. (to achieve a collapse where one tower falls into the other, ending with both towers landing on wall street, as was their wild "intention")


Without sounding condescending why was it was possible to cause one of the towers to convienently fall on Number Seven without anyone observing the parameters you noted above? It seems rather fortuitous in my opinion that a building fell on another without anyone noting the preperation involved in causing this event when you indicate how difficult it would be. Thank you for your civility in responding to my questions.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Possibly, because if WTC 1, 2, and 7 had splattered all over Manhattan and the Hudson River, there would have been a mass quantity public outcry and demand for a full thorough investigation of 9/11/2001. Many, many lawsuits clogging the courts also.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


There was debris and remains from 1,2 and 7 all over lower Manhattan and there was a public outcry and demand for a full and thorough investigation (whether you feel this occured or not is another matter) and there were and are many lawsuits in the courts.

This underscores one of the points I was making. To me it seems like massive overkill to demolize the towers when the attack itself would have been enough to cause all these issues and more.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
That was primarily small, minute particles of concrete, drywall, and asbestoes dust, plus, other pulverized debris, blown out by high gravitational force, coupled with dropping weight, mass,and velocity, pulverizing and decompressing, plus, also carried out and far away by nature's wind.

Some of the sections of the two exterior steel walls were blown outward when the tubes came apart (exterior primary load bearers and the facade) from the massive force of decompression. Both were attached to the building not sitting between each floor giving support to each floor.

That is not what happens when buildings topple, particularly buildings the size of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Entire floors can still be connected (pancake effect) and land intact, or very close to intact, when toppling. Many more people would have died on 9/11/2001, if any of those buildings had toppled, not dropped straight down into their own footprints.

Only controlled demolitions can drop buildings straight into their own footprints. It literally pulls buildings in on themselves to land primarily in their own footprints (supporting foundations).



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think the government let it happen . Theres evidence that points to a few people being warned .
Now if one of those people were the owner . Well you have see the arguments for that . Immagine if your 600 million $ problem could become a huge payoff.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindless
 


Are you refering to Silverstein and his lease? From what I recall the Trade Center was at nearly maximum occupancy at the time of the attack. He also outbid Vornado Realty for the lease and having personally dealt with Vornado the are definetly out to maximize their earning potential. I would be surprised if they had not thoroughly explored the revenue stream prior to bidding. With the ever escalating price of real estate in Manhattan I could not see how destroying nearly fully leased buildings and replacing it with less floor space would be in his interest.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindless
 


Bin Laden's crew were not experienced control demolitions experts. They knew explosions. I cite 1993 WTC 1 explosion, IF bin Laden was involved in that.

Whoever dropped the twin towers and 7 were pros with many, many years of experience in controlled demolition implosion. That is not opinion. That is fact.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, I appreciate your posts but I am more concerned in determining what peoples rationale is regarding the reason for suggesting a controlled demolition. I am not a structural engineer nor do I profess much knowledge in that field so I will leave the debate as to how buildings fall to people more enlightened then myself to answer.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
And now he owns (will own) the largest memorial building ever built.
Which is now one (will be) of the most famous buildings in American history.
Sound like a good deal for just doing nothing.


Happen to have the rent quote for an office on the new building vs old vs space?

[Hope you dont think im saying he did it. Just saying he could easily do nothing and it have the same outcome.]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
This is were I have a difficult time digesting the conspiracy theory. If someone were to propose to me that the United States goverment disregarded or was somehow involved in the planning or execution of Spetmeber 11th I could at least follow the thoughts as plausible to my mind. For me to carry this equation further until it becomes: Government involvement --> planes strike buildings --> buildings collapse from controlled demolition in such a way as to fall on Number Seven thereby destroying evidence which is condsidered crucial to Enron and Bin Laden (among other cases), credulity of the theory is then lost with me.


Woah, what? Who mentioned the United States Government? Yeah I know some people think that, but to lay responsibility with them is to assume they were the conspirators - maybe they were, maybe they weren't. You asked for reasons why CD would have been plausable. I think they all still stand as plausable, regardless of who may have conspired the demolitions.

For the record, I don't recall WTC1 or WTC2 falling on WTC7, and then crushing the building, ultimately destroying the evidence. WTC7 fell hours after anything had touched it, it only got hit by debris from WTC1 and had fires that should not have ended in global collapse. WTC7 was almost certainly controlled demolition, even if the other two were natural.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicusEvidence can be manipulated and destroyed in a far simpler fashion as has been demonstrated at the executive level in other historical incidents i.e. Watergate and even after the Chief Executive leaves office, i.e. Sandy Berger.


I think controlled demolition on a damaged building is as simple as it can possibly get. With the amount of evidence, and court cases, that were lost, delayed or cancelled due to WTC7's collapse, there would have been major enquiries if all this had suddenly gone missing, all at the same time, and some serious investigations into it. Just because other cases in history disposed of their evidence another way, means nothing.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Are we not discussing questions regarding September 11th right now even though this did not occur? The theory of government knowledge or involvement has been posited from the very beginning. This is another instance where the uncertainty of a controlled demolition calls me to question the theory. Who is to say what the 'proper' amount of casulties are? What if a 'planned' attack actually stranded 10,000 people above the floors impacted, would the demolition have continued as 'planned'?


Who cares what the proper amount of casualties is? The fact remains, more died due to the collapse than if they had have stayed standing. What does speculation about whether the demolition would have continued had more people been above the impact zone hope to achieve? Without knowing the conspirators, and knowing other things for certain, who knows what conditions would have dictated what actions?


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Without sounding condescending why was it was possible to cause one of the towers to convienently fall on Number Seven without anyone observing the parameters you noted above? It seems rather fortuitous in my opinion that a building fell on another without anyone noting the preperation involved in causing this event when you indicate how difficult it would be. Thank you for your civility in responding to my questions.


Please show this evidence of a tower falling on WTC7. It didn't happen, there's plenty of threads on here discussing things to do with WTC7 - I posted one recently showing some bits of WTC1 hitting WTC7, but by no means did it fall on it! It was damaged by WTC1, but it stood quietly alone for hours, until it dropped entirely in 7 seconds. It's for another thread but it didn't have a tower land on it.

I think I should also make it clear that I am merely posting reasons for why controlled demolition may have been an option that day, and these reasons whether valid or otherwise, neither prove nor disprove whether controlled demolition actually occured that day. And thanks for the return of civility, it's refreshing.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Sixty-one days prior to 9/11/2001, Larry Silverstein bought billions of dollars pay-off value with a high priced terrorism addendum to his normal insurance policy. His grace period for pay-off ended on the 60th day. 9/11/2001 was the first day pay-off of any insurance kicked in.

The following presents general occupancy rates as of 9/11/2001 at 8:00 am:

www.alternet.org...

"Not being from NY or know much about business, I was at first gasping, OMG!, all those people! Since the Towers are the tallest buildings, have room for 50,000 person occupancy EACH I just thought we had lost a city full of souls--

But then, the count came in at 3500 of which a third was service personell on the outside trying to get in to help.

What's wrong with this picture? I researched on the internet also. The Towers were White Elephants in NY City. They were not the High society place to do business, I guess. Their occupancy rate plumetted in the months preceding 911. Larry Silverstein purchased a 99 year lease from the NY Port Authority just months before this tragic event:

From City Journal

"Just seven weeks before the terrorist attacks, the authority reached a deal with Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, which agreed to lease the towers and other authority-owned facilities in the area for $3.2 billion (over 99 years), with $616 million paid up front.

Larry Silverstein would only have to pay the city $25 million yearly in an in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, about $75 million less than what the property taxes would actually be. In addition, the towers could continue to tap low-cost taxpayer-subsidized electricity from the New York Power Authority, saving Silverstein millions a year over what he would pay if he had to buy electricity from Con Ed at market rates. The Port Authority also agreed to use public funds to pay any property taxes in excess of $25 million that Silverstein might incur in the future if New York City ever succeeded in putting the trade center on the property-tax rolls."


For anyone never seeing the inside of either tower, perhaps people would care to see what either tower partially looked like prior to be imploded:

www.greatbuildings.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


If you are referring to my post, yes, there is a way of closely estimating additional count, based on number of vehicles and pedestrians on the streets, on the water, and in other buildings surrounding the WTC complex, including WTC 7.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindless
 


Owning the largest memorial ever built does not in my opinion affect your corporations bottom line and the Towers were imensely famous before their destruction, they were an iconic representation of New York and America.

It might not be the best analogy but imagine you have a subdived property with two homes. You raze both structures, recombine the property and construct a new home with less floor space the you previously had. Is this a sound real estate decision?

From what I could gather rents in the Freedom Tower are in the $60 a square foot range, which to my casual perusal of real estate websites in Manhattan seems low where indicators are that $100 an up is not unheard of. If you have any other figures or feel these to be incorrect please post them.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The twin towers may have been fascinating to the eye. However, they were also big money losers from the day they opened. They became progressively so particularly in the month leading up to 9/11/2001.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join