So if the buildings where brought down by explosion

Now im un-decided weather the twin towers where an inside job
But if they were brought down by explosions , the team that would have to organise the job would have to be one of the best demo teams in the world
So who do you think did it? i doubt the CIA or FEMA know how to do stuff like that
and what demo team in the world would keep it secret?

What about wtc7?

And it's not like every single person at the cia is just some guy in a suit. A lot of them are professionals at something, whether you want to say they did it themselves or not.

well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

That being said, it would take a team of CD professionals several months per building, to wire it up. Doing so includes removing any material covering load bearing components. In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

All this seems INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY unlikely.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

That being said, it would take a team of CD professionals several months per building, to wire it up. Doing so includes removing any material covering load bearing components. In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

All this seems INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY unlikely.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

If it were a controlled demolition that wasn't meant to scare everyone--that was actually meant to be "controlled," you might have a point. But those charges did not need to be placed to prevent injury or damage because they didn't care about any of that. They just wanted it to come down.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by scarlett1125]

Originally posted by scarlett1125


If it were a controlled demolition that wasn't meant to scare everyone--that was actually meant to be "controlled," you might have a point. But those charges did not need to be placed to prevent injury or damage because they didn't care about any of that. They just wanted it to come down.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by scarlett1125]

True.

So did they use sooper seekrit hush-a-boom explosives?

Originally posted by scarlett1125

Originally posted by jfj123
well there is no evidence of controlled demolition.

That being said, it would take a team of CD professionals several months per building, to wire it up. Doing so includes removing any material covering load bearing components. In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

All this seems INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY unlikely.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

If it were a controlled demolition that wasn't meant to scare everyone--that was actually meant to be "controlled," you might have a point. But those charges did not need to be placed to prevent injury or damage because they didn't care about any of that. They just wanted it to come down.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by scarlett1125]

Charges would need to be placed to create sequential structural failure from the bottom up. The WTC's fell from the top down.

Placing the charges involves attaching the demolitions at various structural points on the buildings framework. To get to the framework, the finished veneers would need to be stripped away. Nobody was seen doing this throughout all 3 buildings.

The whole controlled demolition theory is based upon videos of the buildings falling pretty much into their own footprint.

Just to shake it up & kick it up a notch, I'd like to say that most people who were in or close to the building long after impact, noticed an explosion in the basement, as well as in the elevator shafts. Of course, a lot of crazy things can happen when a building is on fire, but the way they describe it seems like there were explosives in there*. That's why I think it was an 'inside' job - inside the building, that is. But anyone could've gotten in..

To me, one of the scariest things about the possibility of an government-related inside job, is the fact that Dick Cheney, Bush and if I'm correct the owner of the WTC at the time of the attack, made up a signed a manifest in which they want to change the state the States are in, but that the only possible way of doing so was by a 'catastrophic event'. Of course, they didnt mention where the event should come from. I've been trying to find a link to this, but I can't - it must've been part of some video, which of course lowers the credibility . However, this would've been a few years before 9/11, leaving enough time to do anything you can imagine; for example, the things people wonder about in this thread. If there is any truth about the government being related to this, I think it would've been prepared for years.

* Some interviews can be found right here on our own website. This is one of them.

[Edit: filled up the holes in a sentence and to please the ones unable to search themselves]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by scraze]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by scraze]

Originally posted by scraze
Just to shake it up & kick it up a notch, I'd like to say that most people who were in or close to the building long after impact, noticed an explosion in the basement, as well as in the elevator shafts.

Back up your shakes & kicks with some links to sources.

My bad. One line posts are a no - no here. Sorry

[edit on 1-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to show that there was ample motive for 9/11 to be an "inside job."

Let's try to stay focused on the "how" not the "why" while examining the CD theory. I am on the fense with this one myself. Not so much with Seven, but with the Twins. Seven I really don't see how it couldn't have been a CD. Which of course only then lends more to the possibility that the Twins were taken down with CD as well.

reply to post by Disgustipated

i doubt the CIA or FEMA know how to do stuff like that...

Why would you doubt that? CIA has all sorts of people on their payroll, not just agents. Not to mention the fact that they would certainly have to have some people who were experts on such even if it were just for data interpretation.

And FEMA would certainly have experts on CD, considering that they train to be the "first responders" on the Federal level to events like 9/11 and OKC. I would certainly hope that they had people on staff with an intimate knowledge of CD.

Then there is also another point to consider. The op may not have been carried out by Americans.

reply to post by jfj123


i dont believe you understand how advanced the technology of today is. sorry to be blunt but its very likely. i believe there are lots of firefighters who would agree.

reply to post by jfj123

In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

They wouldn't have to strip it down to the framework entirely.

People did see signs of this going on, but weren't fully aware of it at the time. Everything from unexplained activity in vacant areas, to violations and irregularities in long-standing security procedures, to huge amounts of dust in offices in the month or so leading up to 9/11.

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

Why? The buildings didn't fall on impact.

Originally posted by CommanderSinclair
reply to post by jfj123

 

i dont believe you understand how advanced the technology of today is. sorry to be blunt but its very likely. i believe there are lots of firefighters who would agree.

Although I do understand, let's assume I don't and you explain in detail what you're referring too. Thanks.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

So did they use sooper seekrit hush-a-boom explosives?

You mean nice quiet ones like this...?



Let's hear from the firefighters...



Then we have this from an officer on-scene at WTC7...



There is also video floating around of a man who reprted that the lobby of WTC7 was blown out before the first two towers collapsed.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

In other words, they would need to strip the building down to the framework to place all the charges. Nobody saw anybody doing any of this????

They wouldn't have to strip it down to the framework entirely.

Why not?

People did see signs of this going on, but weren't fully aware of it at the time.

There were rennovations going on which creates a lot of dust.

In addition to that, they would need to run calculations that would time perfectly with the plane impacts, explosive fuel spill from the planes, any volatile material in the buildings themselves such as fuel for boilers, etc...

Why? The buildings didn't fall on impact.


Because if the planes hit in a structural area that was particularly important for the charges to be placed and the planes damaged/destroyed/dislodged those charges, the whole "plan" could be wrecked.

Again, keep in mind that CD happens from the bottom up and not the top down.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123

Charges would need to be placed to create sequential structural failure from the bottom up. The WTC's fell from the top down.

So, you're saying gravity did it then?

Okay, let's have a closer look at the physics then...



The we have how buildings have collapsed before...









[edit on 6/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 6/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

Charges would need to be placed to create sequential structural failure from the bottom up. The WTC's fell from the top down.

So, you're saying gravity did it then?

Okay, let's have a closer look at the physics then...

video doesn't work

I'm saying that with regard to WTC 1 and 2, planes hit those buildings which caused massive structural damage and fires which weakened the structural support of the building to the point of global structural failure. And yes of course gravity was involved. Gravity would have been involved regardless of whether it was CD or not

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123

Why not?

Well, why would they have to completely strip the entire building down to the frame. While this is often done, it is not always done.

There were rennovations going on which creates a lot of dust.

Allegedly. But why so many renovations on a building that was about to be condemned and could not be retro-fitted for certain modernization that would have been required to keep the building filled with tenants?

Because if the planes hit in a structural area that was particularly important for the charges to be placed and the planes damaged/destroyed/dislodged those charges, the whole "plan" could be wrecked.

Not at all, because as you stated...

...keep in mind that CD happens from the bottom up and not the top down.

And we all saw that the portion above the impact zones intitially tumbled intact.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

Charges would need to be placed to create sequential structural failure from the bottom up. The WTC's fell from the top down.

So, you're saying gravity did it then?

Okay, let's have a closer look at the physics then...


[edit on 6/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

I stopped watching the first video when it said there were no bodies at the Shanksville crash site. There were body parts all over the crash site according to eye witnesses.

The 2nd video involved an approx. 10 story building falling over on it's side due to shoddy construction. How would this be comparable to either WTC 1 or 2?

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123

 

Not at all, because as you stated...


...keep in mind that CD happens from the bottom up and not the top down.

Excellent then you agree that since CD happens from the ground up and the buildings collapsed from the top down, it wasn't a CD. EXCELLENT

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jfj123]