Hi All

This is my first post..

I have been reading posts on forums and looking at some of the websites about 9/11 for about 6 months
trying to come to my own conclusions over what happened.

1. WTC1 & WTC2 collapse
Why bother putting demolition charges in there? The plane crashes themselves would have caused huge loss of
life and public shock without the towers coming down. If there had been charges placed there would have been
a risk that somebody would have found them. Also if there had been charges there why wait to detonate them?
Why not set them off at the moment the planes impacted? That would have caused even more loss of life.

Some people point to the apparent explosions just below the level of the smoke and fire when the towers started
to collapse. How would it be possible to place charges at the same level as where the plane struck? How could they
be sure at what level the plane would impact. Also the triggering devices - radio controlled or the like - could have
been destroyed by the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires. Also if there were demolition charges set how could
they be sure that they had not placed too much and it would look too suspicious?

There was a post about the possibilities of small thermonuclear device being placed. In my understanding the thermonuclear
bomb was designed to create as big an explosion as possible. So I would tend to discount this idea. Also I would imagine
that something that this would have to be experimented with to ensure its success. Is there any evidence that anything like
this has been tried out before?

As to thermite being used, from what I have read this would have needed to be in contact with the steel structure to have
worked and the steel structure was encased in concrete.

On the other hand why did the remains of the structure stay at such a high temperature underground for several weeks?

Try searching for asbestos and WTC. Maybe that will get you started on why.

Why all three buildings that fell as if they were "pulled" is because the order was given to bring them down. The fear of those buildings toppling would justify the "rigging" with "cutter charges". The previous attack was in the basment with the intent to topple. Our government had a "cure" in place to off set the danger of the domino effect of toppling buildings. Why our government choose to "pull" those buildings is questionable at best.

Seem to forget something about 2 massive airliners which smashed
into each tower. As original poster states how could be sure that
plane would hit correct location - UAL 175 almost missed South Tower
Only at last second did pilot pull radical maneuver to hit building - even
then hit corner of building rather instead of center. Again how does
one sneak explosives into occupied building and cut into walls without
leaving traces? Much less get detonators to function in large steel
building - real demolition experts lay miles of det cord and shock tubes
to insure detonation.

The WTC 7 - most kooks seen to think building suddenly fell down
one day - forgetting again that was struck by massive amount of debris
from Tower 1 which ripped open south face of building and set number
of fires on multiple floors.

One you lose the conspiracy fantasty and start looking on what happened, not what you want to happen takes on whole different meaning.....

Originally posted by cashlink
Oh really! Can you prove this and do show your source?

Sure, go look at any construction photographs of the towers. The cladding was not added on until later. Either that or go look at

1. Leaked Blueprints
   
2. NIST Report
   
3. Post-Construction Photographs
   
4. Steel debris post-collapse
   
5. Any source other than this page
   

Sadly enough, the end result of simple human error has now brought the entire world to a state of heightened alarm, to say the very least. I strongly encourage you to cross-reference these issues, as recorded in countless independent and government source documents pertaining to the critical stress-dynamics, and galvanic properties inherent in aluminium alloys.

Oh I don't doubt that dissimilar metals can undergo corrosion, but do you know how the aluminium panels worked?

Even handwaving away my complaint there, it doesn't explain why you would build, demolish and rebuild scaffolding twice despite the fact the building was constructed without this ridiculous scenario. There are lots of strange mentions in this story, such as how there are references to WTC7 and quotes from the FEMA report.

It's all fine and dandy speculating, but this story has been around for years and no evidence has ever backed it up. It's just one of those claims that's out there and some people believe.

Originally posted by cashlink

You need to learn to read before posting!
Fist of all I did not say the building had a low occupancy rate.

Umm, scroll up, Cashola. This is what you said:

Originally posted by cashlink
Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under-tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb.

Under-Tenanted. You DO know what a tenant is, correct?