Why a controlled demolition?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Please, I did so in my second post, and there are 2 pages of people posting here why they think that "they" chose for a CD to happen. Don't you read the posts, or do you dismiss parts that don't fit your assumption?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


"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."


Well then, I just don't get it, I guess. You are not trying to establish if there was a CD, but you are trying to establish WHY a CD was needed?
So once you have succesfully established why, what do you plan on doing with that information? What is the whole goal behind this?
Surely this question must be part of a bigger picture. How does the answer to your question correlate with the question of the collapses being CD's? Or isn't there any correlation?

I don't know, I get the feeling you are holding on to something cause you don't want to see the bigger picture, even though you know what's up, deep inside. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by enigmania

Please, I did so in my second post,

If you are refering to the below quote then thank you for contributing to my thread.

Pure shock value to lubricate their process.

and there are 2 pages of people posting here why they think that "they" chose for a CD to happen.

I read the replies from the five other posters who responded to me, but thank you for pointing that out.

Don't you read the posts, or do you dismiss parts that don't fit your assumption?

My assumption has nothing to do with your opinion or anyone else's for that matter, I am not sure how many more times I can indicate that. Why does it matter to you if I do not believe or believe there was a controlled demolition? I want to know why people thought it was necessary.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


One important thing to remember - considering there is so much we do not know, we cannot accurately suggest scenario's as either proof for or against, for this very reason. There are so many possibilities, that to make a statement about any one of them with regards to plausability, is doomed with failure from the start.

For instance, in the post I link to here you refer of "producing" 9/11 - but what if it was already in place and planned by terrorists? And they LIHOP, with a few shady individuals rigging a few things here and there for personal gain? I mean, if it's gonna happen anyway, why not take full advantage of it? Personally I wouldn't dream of doing something like this in a situation like that, but you only need to read a paper to see what some people with money will turn a blind eye too, or stretch their limits of greed for.

There's even a possibility, surprisingly never brought up by anybody (gov, MSM) around 9/11, that terrorists could have placed charges of some kind. Isn't that worth investigating?

Originally posted by enigmania
Well then, I just don't get it, I guess. You are not trying to establish if there was a CD, but you are trying to establish WHY a CD was needed?

Yes, I wanted people's theories on why they thought it was needed.

So once you have succesfully established why, what do you plan on doing with that information? What is the goal behind this?

I am collecting opinions so I do not think there is any type of establishment other then a discourse between other members of Above Top Secret. I want to attempt to understand why they feel something occured. I have only my thoughts, I wish to try and understand theirs. I do not think this is a strange concept.

Surely this question must be part of a bigger picture. How does the answer to your question correlate with the question of the collapses being CD's? Or isn't there any correlation?

No it is not and I do not have any type of correlation to offer. I am merely soliciting opinions, whether outlandish or mundane.

I don't know, I get the feeling you are holding on to something cause you don't want to see the bigger picture, even though you know what's up, deep inside. Am I wrong?

I have no idea what I would be holding on to so I would have to say that you are indeed wrong of your assesment of me.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


My whole second post was a reply to your initial question, I'm sorry that you, for some reason, didn't get that.

Originally posted by adjay
One important thing to remember - considering there is so much we do not know, we cannot accurately suggest scenario's as either proof for or against, for this very reason. There are so many possibilities, that to make a statement about any one of them with regards to plausability, is doomed with failure from the start.

I concur with the caveat that somethings to me are more plausible then others. I can understand many conspiracy theories and their proponents viewpoints but I have read such things as blackholes and aliens helped bring down the World Trade Center and their plausability level with me is not very high.

For instance, in the post I link to here you refer of "producing" 9/11 - but what if it was already in place and planned by terrorists?

The reason for my using quotes as I am indicating that those are not to be taken as my viewpoints and a basis for arguement in regards my stance of the subject.

And they LIHOP, with a few shady individuals rigging a few things here and there for personal gain? I mean, if it's gonna happen anyway, why not take full advantage of it? Personally I wouldn't dream of doing something like this in a situation like that, but you only need to read a paper to see what some people with money will turn a blind eye too, or stretch their limits of greed for.

I will never argue that human nature does not allow for many abhorent and despicable instances to transpire.

There's even a possibility, surprisingly never brought up by anybody (gov, MSM) around 9/11, that terrorists could have placed charges of some kind. Isn't that worth investigating?

It certainly is and is something that I have contemplated myself when the talk of a controlled demolition was broached.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The following was your question to open this discussion:

"Why a controlled demolition?"

I have given you at least two legitimate solid reasons why controlled demolitions were used. You rejected both reasons any knowledgeable business person would accept as legitimate. Exactly what is it you want to read or hear to satisfy your question?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


"No it is not and I do not have any type of correlation to offer. I am merely soliciting opinions, whether outlandish or mundane."

So I was right the first time when I said that wondering about the "why", is definately not going to help any discussion, you say your inquiry has no correlation to any subject yourself, not even to the question if the Towers were brought by CD's.
So of what possible use can it be, if you can't even relate the answers you find to the events that actually sparked your question in the first place?

That's what I meant with holding on to something, you keep focusing on the reasons why, without any apparant higher purpose, almost like if you don't want to find out the truth.

Originally posted by enigmania
My whole second post was a reply to your initial question, I'm sorry that you, for some reason, didn't get that.

Your whole second post is below.....


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.

The first two sentences are more a statement of fact then a personal opinion but I will concede the second if you insist. The third is an opinion but one that I can not really debate as you did not specify the process to which you were refering. The rest is reassertion of other people's post, a logical fallacy and a challenge that I do not wish to undertake as it was not the impetus of my thread.




[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

Please, can someone explain to me how to qoute multiple, separate pieces of someones post, instead of the whole post, I can't seem to get it right. Thnx.

reply to post by OrionStars


I rejected nothing, I merely asked you to support your assertion that the World Trade Center was not profitable at the time of the attack. The link you provided only offered people's opinions and nothing substantive. A hypothesis is just that without fact. If you directed me to data backing up your claim and the persons you quoted, I would say that your theory is valid.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by enigmania
My whole second post was a reply to your initial question, I'm sorry that you, for some reason, didn't get that.

Your whole second post is below.....


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.

The first two sentences are more a statement of fact then a personal opinion but I will concede the second if you insist. The third is an opinion but one that I can not really debate as you did not specify the process to which you were refering. The rest is reassertion of other people's post, a logical fallacy and a challenge that I do not wish to undertake as it was not the impetus of my


[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

Are you serious? Do I have to spell it out for you? Now you're just being childish, with your fancy, empty words.
If that post doesn't summarize my opinion on why they wanted a CD, then there is just no talking to you whatsoever.

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by enigmania
So I was right the first time when I said that wondering about the "why", is definately not going to help any discussion, you say your inquiry has no correlation to any subject yourself, not even to the question if the Towers were brought by CD's.

I never posted this thread with the intention of 'helping' discussion. I was merely curious to see why other people might have thought this was a necessary aspect of the attack.

So of what possible use can it be, if you can't even relate the answers you find to the events that actually sparked your question in the first place?

Its use is purely selfish in nature, satisfying my own curiousity.

That's what I meant with holding on to something, you keep focusing on the reasons why, without any apparant higher purpose, almost like if you don't want to find out the truth.

Truth is relative. Your truth may not be my truth and quite frankly I am not interested in anyone's truth, just their opinion.

P.S. Try the ATS handbook on the member center it has a good demonstration on how to multiple quote, hope that helps

All this "conspiracy" talk could end here, today. Release the video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Didn't Rumsfeld say something like "they attacked us with planes and missles"? Then I think someone told him to shut up.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You are responding to the wrong poster with that response. I asked what what subjective response would satisfy your initial question.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Blackholes brought down the twin towers and WTC 7? Where is that posted? I can say, without reservation, that it is impossible. However, I would be interested in reading how someone came up with that impossibility, as you interpreted someone else to mean. Which may well have not been meant to be interpreted your way.

Originally posted by enigmania
Please, can someone explain to me how to qoute multiple, separate pieces of someones post, instead of the whole post, I can't seem to get it right. Thnx.

Using [ and ] instead of [ and ] :

[quote][i]Originally posted by enigmania[/i]quoted_text_1[/quote]

your response to quoted_text_1

[quote][i]Originally posted by enigmania[/i]quoted_text_2[/quote]

your response to quoted_text_2

Apologies for slight offtopic but it's thread relevant, and annoying to not be able to do this function.

On topic, I sum up the "why" with; to maximise effect and capitalise on the events of that day.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


If all you wanted was people's opinions, why are you arguing against those you do not like? Merely asking people's opinions normally indicates a survey is being taken, without any subjective commentary or rejection from the person taking the survey.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by enigmania
So I was right the first time when I said that wondering about the "why", is definately not going to help any discussion, you say your inquiry has no correlation to any subject yourself, not even to the question if the Towers were brought by CD's.

I never posted this thread with the intention of 'helping' discussion. I was merely curious to see why other people might have thought this was a necessary aspect of the attack.

So of what possible use can it be, if you can't even relate the answers you find to the events that actually sparked your question in the first place?

Its use is purely selfish in nature, satisfying my own curiousity.

That's what I meant with holding on to something, you keep focusing on the reasons why, without any apparant higher purpose, almost like if you don't want to find out the truth.

Truth is relative. Your truth may not be my truth and quite frankly I am not interested in anyone's truth, just their opinion.

P.S. Try the ATS handbook on the member center it has a good demonstration on how to multiple quote, hope that helps

First off all, you were the one that insinuated that I didn't help the discussion progress, same can be said about you then.

Secondly, you say the higher purpose of your question is to satisfy your curiousity. I feel sorry for you, if you curiousity is satisfied with other peoples opinions on why "they' chose for a CD to happen, but it does not go beyond that notion, and it never correlates with the real issue at hand, the bigger picture.

Thirdly, I don't like the idea of you provoking all these reactions, for your own selfish entertainment, without any deeper meaning to others than you.

And when you ask for someone's opinion, you are, in fact, asking for their truth.

PS thnx for the tip!

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]