Why a controlled demolition?

I find the arguments and available evidence for controlled demolition in WTC1, 2 & 7 compelling - overwhelmingly so in the case of 7. There is also evidence supporting the case for explosives at the Pentagon.

The question of motive is entirely valid and I have

The ongoing maintenance costs caused by the aluminium cladding coupled with the problem of asbestos removal are documented.


My opinion (guess) is that the vast costs involved in legally decommissioning the buildings combined with a looming deadline to
Thi
The answer

While you guys set around and argue about this control demolition crap
they have all ready gotten bye with what they want to to get bye with!!
Its called a useful distraction , magicians do it all the time
make you look some where else why they take something
out of there pockets.
Tricks of the trade.
They have already gotten bye with what they want and its over.!!
And i am afraid its just getting started.

Originally posted by TrojanNutzConspiracy
While you guys set around and argue about this control demolition crap
they have all ready gotten bye with what they want to to get bye with!!
Its called a useful distraction , magicians do it all the time
make you look some where else why they take something
out of there pockets.

Tricks of the trade.

They have already gotten bye with what they want and its over.!!

And i am afraid its just getting started.

Thanks, if it wasn't for you, they had me fooled. It is not that I want to solve, or think I can solve the problem with talking, but in the end, what can you do?
You come with this "wake up call", but you're also just talking on a forum. What's the difference, and what significant things do you do?

Originally posted by adjay
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?

Well considering after the first WTC attack in 93, that some experts suggested that if the bomb was a little bigger and placed in a better spot that the tower would have collapsed, simply bombing the basement may have achieved the objective.

So back to the OPs question, why CD? In my mind it doesn't need to be a "CD", but wether your a fanatical extremist, or greedy business person, the towers needed to fall for either your ego trip or your money making plan.

Of course there are plenty of other reasons posted earlier here in this thread, destruction of evidence, psyops, reasons for invading oil rich and/or strategic countries, sorry but 300 dead isn't gonna fly for sending 200,000 troops over seas.

delete.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Twisted Pair]

delete.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Twisted Pair]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


~~~

Peruse this site and you might gain a little more multi-contextual insight:

thebravenewworldorder.blogspot.com...

~~~

If you spend all your time on the hows and not the who's.
Then you are gonna get fooled by the elite!!

Quit worrying about how it was done and how and why it happened
but who profited from it!!

terrorist maybe!! not!!!!!!!

Originally posted by TrojanNutzConspiracy
While you guys set around and argue about this control demolition crap
they have all ready gotten bye with what they want to to get bye with!!
Its called a useful distraction , magicians do it all the time
make you look some where else why they take something
out of there pockets.

Tricks of the trade.

They have already gotten bye with what they want and its over.!!

And i am afraid its just getting started.

It's not over. They're over.

Originally posted by pc is here

Originally posted by TrojanNutzConspiracy
While you guys set around and argue about this control demolition crap
they have all ready gotten bye with what they want to to get bye with!!
Its called a useful distraction , magicians do it all the time
make you look some where else why they take something
out of there pockets.

Tricks of the trade.

They have already gotten bye with what they want and its over.!!

And i am afraid its just getting started.

It's not over. They're over.

Rumsfeld got out. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are staying to the end. --------------PC

reply to post by OrionStars


This person's theory links September 11th, Flight 93, Burning Man, the collapse of the twin Towers and mini-black holes. Is there a chance I misinterperted what they meant? Maybe, but if you mention these things in one paragraph is there any sense to be found?

mini-black hole theory

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.

I prefer conversing. Why can I not raise question regarding their opinion? It helps me to further my understanding of their viewpoint. I may ask for further clarification or expounding. I may then offer my opinion or propose a counter to why I do not think I agree with that opinion. I do not see what the issue is with this tact.

edited link.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


All I saw off your link was the following and a list of something:

"This is G o o g l e's cache of bassnectar.tribe.net... as retrieved on Jan 3, 2008 07:10:53 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: www.google.com...:jgMjfQ4IBkMJ:bassnectar.tribe.net/thread/acf05b3b-5890-4a3f-818c-8250e54fbdc3+9/11+%22black+holes%22+collapse+tow ers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content."

Is what you are doing what you consider legitimate debate? Because it is not considered legitimate debate by others actually experience in legitimate debate.

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

Only in regards to having you offer your own opinion on why a controlled demolition was needed and not wanting you to reiterate others sentiments.

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.

Save your pity for those who truly need it as I am never one to seek people to feel sorry for me. The 'bigger picture', the attacks being an inside job if I am infering properly, is open for debate on numerous other threads ad nauseum and I did not want to create another. I am interested in a certain aspect of the conspiracy theorists reasoning.

You may or may not accept a controlled demolition as fact, to this I am not concerned, what I want to know is why you think it had to happen. The why and not the how is what I am seeking. I want you to put yourself in 'their' place and give me your opinion of what you think the reasoing is behind having this as a necessary step in the attacks as a whole.

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.

Duly noted. If you feel so strongly then perhaps you should not answer me as this only further enables my curiosity.

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

Perhaps, but their opinion and their truth by their very nature are subjective quantities and can be accepted or disregarded as the recipient desires.

PS thnx for the tip!

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by OrionStars


Is what you are doing what you consider legitimate debate? Because it is not considered legitimate debate by others actually experience in legitimate debate.

Did you happen to miss the part where I stated that I was soliciting opinions?

Try the link now, it will eliminate the google cache info at the top of the page that was not obscuring any information.

reply to post by Twisted Pair


Thank you for the link Twisted Pair. I will most assuredly peruse it when I find the time and will respond to you with any pertinent comments or information.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by OrionStars


Is what you are doing what you consider legitimate debate? Because it is not considered legitimate debate by others actually experience in legitimate debate.

Did you happen to miss the part where I stated that I was soliciting opinions?

Try the link now, it will eliminate the google cache info at the top of the page that was not obscuring any information.

I missed your debate thrust. Mostly thinking about what happened. If you are practicing for a debate I would bet on you!

The owners of the buildings were made aware of the asbestos in the buildings. They were told they would have to be demolished and asbestos made safe by 2012 at the latest.

The planes were not enough to bring down the towers so the controlled demolition was used to bring them down to the foundation.

It also allowed the owners to claim a terrorist attack to get some money for rebuilding rather than paying 2bn to demolish and about the same to rebuild.

Perpitrators - The building owners and Government
Motive - save costs and start war

They all new about the attacks and prepared by rigging the buildings.

One important fact overlooked by many - The owners of the buildings took out insurance against terrorist attacks only weeks before it happened. They also claimed for the insurance money twice as two planes hit so 2 attacks.

They got rich and the government got the war they so wanted.

Win win situation for them.

Lose Lose for all of humanity if we can ever prove it to be 100% true.

Mace

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You say you are just looking for opinions, holding a survey. But it seems to me that everytime someone gives his opinion, you respond back, disputing that opinion?
Doesn't sound like a survey to me, it's more like I said before, you have a set assumption that you try to hold up with your question. You hoped to get answers that would strenghten your view, now that it turns out you aren't getting them, you dismiss the opinions you asked for, while keeping up the appaerance of a unbiased survey, wich is not really working.

I still don't get how you could focus on your question, if it has no further impact on the whole 911 debate. You could say that your question "why a CD", is the pinnaecle of your personal investigation, and it ends there, that's what I make of your words.
That just doesn't make sense to me at all, and indeed this will be my last post in this thread.
Good luck on your quest of collecting opinions of a matter that, on its own, has no meaning at all!

Originally posted by mace778
The owners of the buildings were made aware of the asbestos in the buildings. They were told they would have to be demolished and asbestos made safe by 2012 at the latest.

I recall asbestos as being an issue involving renovations but I do not remember any mention of the towers needing demolition. Can you tell me where you have seen that reported?

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

You say you are just looking for opinions, holding a survey. But it seems to me that everytime someone gives his opinion, you respond back, disputing that opinion?

I do not think asking for clarification or offering my opinion is dispute.

Doesn't sound like a survey to me, it's more like I said before, you have a set assumption that you try to hold up with your question. You hoped to get answers that would strenghten your view, now that it turns out you aren't getting them, you dismiss the opinions you asked for, while keeping up the appaerance of a unbiased survey, wich is not really working.

I am not seeking your opinion to validate my own. I am seeking it to dsicover what the thought process is behind why people feel a controlled demolition was necessary.

I still don't get how you could focus on your question, if it has no further impact on the whole 911 debate.

I do not want to get involved at this time in the 'whole 9/11 debate' as I feel it is a fruitless endeavor. Have you honestly convinced anyone to change their viewpoint based on conversations you held here on Above Top Secret? Your mind is made up and so is mine. I think the only difference is I try to understand yours while you wish to alter mine.

You could say that your question "why a CD", is the pinnaecle of your personal investigation, and it ends there, that's what I make of your words.

First of it is why is a controlled demolition necessary. The reason I posited it is from conversations I had with others and when I asked that same question I recieved several answers of, ''Just because they needed to.'' I found these to be somewhat lacking in substance and instead attempted to solicit the same answers from people on this forum who I feel might be better able to offer a more cognizant answer.

That just doesn't make sense to me at all, and indeed this will be my last post in this thread.

Sorry it still does not but thank you for your time and post regardless.

Good luck on your quest of collecting opinions of a matter that, on its own, has no meaning at all!

I hate cliches, but to each his own applies here. The meaningless to you might hold meaning to others and the chance to understand others viewpoints was the primary mission.