Why a controlled demolition?

reply to post by OrionStars


The word "month" should be "months".

Originally posted by adjay
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.

Not yourself of course, it was just an instance that I have seen posted here and used it as an exemplifier.

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.

As I see it there are several theories laying blame at different alleged conspirators all with a reason or chance for personal gain and to me this somewhat detemines the plausibility, as my response to Silverstein having participated attempted to address. Some I find more plausible then others while many are just to outlandish to contemplate.

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.

I think I was too general in my comments. I never meant to imply that the entire structure of building 1 fell on building 7. As I posted above I am in no position to determine structural failure in buildings and leave that to people far more educated then myself. The discussion regarding whether number 7 was a controlled demolition is for another thread and debate.

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.

I understand your view but for me it would appear much easier to 'engineer' an incident at number 7 and destroy it outright rather than 'producing' the entire September 11th tragedy. Once again though I am not after the why of the whole incident, just the why of part of it-the controlled demolition aspect.

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?

Agreed, but I did not introduce the rationale that it was the 'icing on the cake' so to speak and would further enflame United States citizens passions for war and retribution. To me 300 dead makes me just as angry as 3,000 dead. Hell, even one dead American from a terrorist attack makes me angry, I need little motivation to want retribution against those who I think have wronged us but this is not about what makes me tick.

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 apologize once again for implying this as it is not what I meant. I feel I addressed this above but if you would like me to further clarify myself I will.

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.

I am not looking for anyone to prove or disprove it to me as my mind is most definetly made up in that regard. I do however want people to continue to offer their opinions why it might have been necessary or desired.

Civility is indeed refreshing and I enjoy the opportunity to have a civil discourse with all.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

Can you direct me to where you are deriving your information from? I knew that during their erection the towers were not considered an optimal project and a bailout was needed to continue their construction. I was however under the impression that at the time of the attack they were near maximum occupancy and profitable. Why would two companys compete to own them if they were not generating substantial revenue?

I can offer this foremost suggestion. Follow the billions of dollars in money made by a very select few, because 9/11/2001 occurred the demonic way it did occur.

reply to post by OrionStars


I feel I have done that and to me it does not support your assertion that they were unprofitable at the time of the attack. Thus the reason I asked you to clarify your statement for for me.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
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.

Maybe if you would look at the collapse, from a structural engineering standpoint, you would be quite able to determine the reason for suggestion of a conrolled demolition.
You say want the rationale behind it, but you dismiss the means to establish this by not debating the core of the evidence for CD, wich lies in structural engineering.
If your not a sructural engineer, why do you take the notion that it wasn't a CD as your standpoint? You wouldn't be able to tell either.
The only thing you go by, is what the government told ya.

Edit: May I suggest you to watch the movie: "911mysteries"

video.google.com...

This movie explains why it had to be a CD in a factual clear way.

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


And off course the Towers had to come down. The collapse created an image that was inprinted in the memory of the whole world. Pure shock value to lubricate their process.
People in this thread came up with several extra conveniences, like Silversteins insurance claim, the money he was loosing on the WTC, the stock exchange market's watchdog and the Enron evidence wich were located in building 7. All true.
You can try to debunk them separately, but it is just all to convenient to be a coincidence.

reply to post by enigmania


If someone smacked you with a sledgehammer would you want a physics interpertation detailing kinetic energy, force and velocity or would you want to know simply why they did it? I want to know why people feel that a controlled demolition was needed.

Furthermore, what does my opinion on whether September 11th was an 'inside' job or not have to do with anyone else's reason for explaning why a controlled demolition was necessary or not? That point to me is completely irrelevant.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I posted it in this discussion. What is most important is the months not years leading up to 9/11/2001 and lack of profit making occupancy.

What is also important is Larry Silverstein's timing, in becoming primary lessee of any part of the WTC complex, and how much money he tried to make off the blood of others.

As it was, when he took the insurance companies to court, after they legitimately fought his for years on full pay-off, he managed to get partial pay-off in the billions. It certainly was not what he expected to net directly due to 9/11/2001.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You have gone off on wide tangent with your own initial discussion.

I kind of spoke about this earlier, if you would like to read what I said here is the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by enigmania

 

If someone smacked you with a sledgehammer would you want a physics interpertation detailing kinetic energy, force and velocity or would you want to know simply why they did it? I want to know why people feel that a controlled demolition was needed.

Furthermore, what does my opinion on whether September 11th was an 'inside' job or not have to do with anyone else's reason for explaning why a controlled demolition was necessary or not? That point to me is completely irrelevant.

The way I read your post you ask why a CD was nessescary, because you don't believe in it. Off course your opinion matters, cause it shines through in your posts.
If you would look at the evidence of it being a CD, your question is not nessescary, since you use it as a point against a CD.

reply to post by OrionStars


The link you posted only contains people's opinions and nothing I can find to be hard data showing occupancy levels. If you have these numbers please direct me to them.

reply to post by enigmania


My opinion on whether it was an inside job or not does not matter, trust me. I am more concerned with the methodology in deciding why a controlled demolition is needed or desired. Are you going to offer your own opinion and possibly advance the discussion?

reply to post by traderonwallst


You have my deepest empathy for your losses and horrifying memories you carry with you.

I will answer your questions from what I have researched on 9/11 and high rise construction in highly congested metropolitan areas, such as NYC.

No one would legally use controlled demolitions the way it was used. They first strip the buildings for safety reasons, particularly in congested areas. They do not allow anyone to get as close as people were standing on 9/11. Nor do they demolish while people are still inside.

As for pre-wiring, I did read in an engineering journal I cannot locate any longer, pre-wiring started to be legally done during construction of high rises, particularly NYC. It saved cost for the day developers had a whim to use already occupied land for new projects. It is much less costly and time efficient to pre-drill the holes in the beams, and run wiring to the pre-drilled holes, while capping off the bare ends of the wires, when buildings are under construction.

The WTC sat on solid bedrock at the harbor. However, the center of the deeper quake fault, running through NYC, is at the harbor where the WTC was built.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I cited the research the author had done in regards to occupancy rates. I noted a poster from NYC, to whom I just responded. To that poster - Was I correct in what I stated, regarding general lack of profitable occupancy, from the day the WTC complex opened, particularly the twin towers?

The taxpyers picked up the tab for the WTC not business owners. The WTC complex was owned by the NY Port Authority.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Because the laws of physics dictate no Boeing 767s and/or kerosene jet fuel dropped with twin tower into their own footprints (supporting foundation with at least 6 sublevels). Then follow the money. Who had the most to gain because of 9/11/2001 occurring the way it did?

It was not bin Laden and his crew. That is a certainty.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by enigmania

 

My opinion on whether it was an inside job or not does not matter, trust me. I am more concerned with the methodology in deciding why a controlled demolition is needed or desired. Are you going to offer your own opinion and possibly advance the discussion?

Well, if that wasn't clear yet: I am of the opinion that the WTC was brought down by means of Controlled Demolition.

I just don't see the use in debating WHY they chose to go for a CD, if you admit to overlook the evidence that it WAS a CD.
Your question "why" is answered by history, if you take the demolition theory for truth.
So why don't you first establish if it was a CD, or not, by looking at the best evidence, instead of wondering why they chose for it, cause that is definately not going to advance any discussion imo.

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Because the laws of physics dictate no Boeing 767s and/or kerosene jet fuel dropped with twin tower into their own footprints (supporting foundation with at least 6 sublevels). Then follow the money. Who had the most to gain because of 9/11/2001 occurring the way it did?

It was not bin Laden and his crew. That is a certainty.

I did not post my question to further this debate which is already transpiring on numerous other thread. None of your above post actually addresses why a controlled demolition was necessary.

Originally posted by enigmania


Well, if that wasn't clear yet: I am of the opinion that the WTC was brought down by means of Controlled Demolition.

I was actually attempting to solicit your opinion on why you thought a controlled demolition was necessary.

I just don't see the use in debating WHY they chose to go for a CD,

Because I am curious. If this does not appeal to you you have my apologies.

if you admit to overlook the evidence that it WAS a CD.
Your question "why" is answered by history, if you take the demolition theory for truth.

This is not germain to my question.

So why don't you first establish if it was a CD, or not, by looking at the best evidence, instead of wondering why they chose for it, cause that is definately not going to advance any discussion imo.

I do not see why that is required. Adjay wrote a very lucid and concise reply to my question and offered his opnion why it was needed. You are obviously free to do the same. I will not attempt to establish if there was a controlled demoltion or not as this was not the intention of my post. This topic has been covered extensively with, in my opinion, no one changing there opinion in the slightest so I do not wish to revisit the topic.