Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: NWOwned

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 commenced at the aircraft impact locations and since the impact location on WTC 2 was much lower than the impact location on WTC 1, is why WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1 even though WTC 2 was struck last.

Furthermore, explosives, if planted at those impact locations, would have been detonated and secondary explosions would have been observed and heard on video and the shockwaves would have been detected by seismographs in the area as well, but none of the above occurred.

a reply to: wildb

And, he lost a battle with the airlines as well. Why did he sue the airlines?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

And, he lost a battle with the airlines as well. Why did he sue the airlines?

Got me. I don't care, don't matter..

a reply to: skyeagle409

Exactly.

Blowing the buildings 4-5 seconds after 'impact' was impossible and not doing so seems like even a misstep. But having each tower's destruction begin to appear where the impacts occurred was not.

originally posted by: Willtell
You either believe in magic or the events on 911 are clearly a false flag

And I don’t mean this next statement as a joke

If this wasn’t a false flag then aliens did this

If this wasnt a planned pretext for war. It would be the exception to the rule - Zeitgeist.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Hey bonz if we assume for a sec that

A.there were no explosives used
And
B. Those ejections were not caused by the collapse

Then what else could explain those ejections?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The mafia, ripped off a construction project forcing substandard structure. The inspectors office was in on it and this and that. So to cover their tracks in the whole affair, they used their 21st century clout (didnt know they still had any) and managed to expediate the destruction of evidence under the nose of the entire nation?

That sounds expensive. What was the mob worried about? Lawsuits? LOL. Ok. I didnt know the mob normally kept paper trails that led to them and where the paper trails did lead, I assumed were delt with a silent 22 cal.

Seriously. I am not doubting the mobs involvment in the project since nearly every project had some mob involvment last century. I do however doubt that any official would bother to implicate the mob, even if there was a way.

Wasn't JFK blamed on the mob too at some point?

Did the mob do pearl harbor too?

I dont mean to pick at you, much respect, but this doesnt fit.

Edit to add:

I feel like a bit of ass after reading what I just wrote. It sounded dismissive as I read it back.

It just seems a little too grand for the mofia as I understood them. As to who would have the biggest motives, I think the prize goes to the militay/industrial complex.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Then what else could explain those ejections?

Ejected due to the collapse, and the 1,450,000 cubic metres of air inside the buildings had to go somewhere.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Then what else could explain those ejections?

Air compressed by the debris falling.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The mafia, ripped off a construction project forcing substandard structure. The inspectors office was in on it and this and that. So to cover their tracks in the whole affair, they used their 21st century clout (didnt know they still had any) and managed to expediate the destruction of evidence under the nose of the entire nation?

That sounds expensive. What was the mob worried about? Lawsuits? LOL. Ok. I didnt know the mob normally kept paper trails that led to them and where the paper trails did lead, I assumed were delt with a silent 22 cal.

Seriously. I am not doubting the mobs involvment in the project since nearly every project had some mob involvment last century. I do however doubt that any official would bother to implicate the mob, even if there was a way.

Wasn't JFK blamed on the mob too at some point?

Did the mob do pearl harbor too?

I dont mean to pick at you, much respect, but this doesnt fit.

Edit to add:

I feel like a bit of ass after reading what I just wrote. It sounded dismissive as I read it back.

It just seems a little too grand for the mofia as I understood them. As to who would have the biggest motives, I think the prize goes to the militay/industrial complex.

Consider that the Port Authority of NY and NYC would have a great deal of financial exposure and wanted to avoid billions in lawsuits. The Mafia let them do the coverup because they had the most to lose. Suing hollowed out Mafia owned construction companies wouldn't recover nearly the amount that they would lose in civil suits. There would also be jail for any culprits still around. The buildings may have gone down anyway, but that can be argued against.

a reply to: wildb

It would not have been practical nor cost-effective to demolish a building for the sake of replacing fire protection on steel columns.

a reply to: Another_Nut

A.there were no explosives used
And
B. Those ejections were not caused by the collapse

Then what else could explain those ejections?

Compressed air as the buildings collapsed. The following photos sums it up.

Photo 1

Photo 2

a reply to: MALBOSIA

If this wasnt a planned pretext for war. It would be the exception to the rule - Zeitgeist.

* Did the United States go to war when terrorist bombed the USS Cole?

* Did the United States go to war when terrorist bombed our embassy in Kenya?

* Did the United States go to war when terrorist bombed our embassy in Tanzania?

* Did the United States go to war after Libya bombed Pan Am 103 out of the sky?

* Did the United States use the tragedy of TWA 800 as an excuse to go to war?

* Did the United States go to war immediately after terrorist bombed WTC 1 in 1993?

* Did the United States go to war after North Korea shot down our EC-121 over international waters?

* Did the United States go to war after North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo in international waters?

* Did the United States go to war after terrorist hijacked American airliners in the Middle East?

* Did the United States immediately go to war after the USS Stark was struck by two Exocet anti-ship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 in 1987?

* Did the United States go to war after Iranians overran our embassy in Iran?

* Did the United States go to war after terrorist bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

* Did the United States go to war after it was revealed by the Philippine Government that terrorist had planned to bomb a number of American airliners out of the sky?

* Did the United States go to war when the Philippine Government revealed that terrorist had planned to slam an aircraft into CIA Headquarters?

In the case of 9/11, we gave the Taliban the opportunity to turn over Osama bin Laden, or else. However, the Taliban refused and the rest is history.

.

a reply to: skyeagle409

But the US did go to war in Vietnam after fabricating a fake attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

And the US did go to war in Iraq after fabricating fake WMD evidence in front of the UN.

There have always been a number of things that troubled me about the events on that day. That's largely why I am here reading this forum at this time. However, I would like to state for the record, before typing anything else, that having doubts does NOT mean I subscribe wholly or in part to any of the numerous alternate theories that abound on the internet. I don't believe the official story in its entirety nor do I believe that I know the truth of that day. I just have doubts. Things that don't add up to me.

With that in mind allow me to share a couple of the things that have bothered me that I see as being relevant to this thread.

The very title of this thread is aimed at the notion that the buildings were brought down in a pre-planned Controlled Demolition as I understand this to be one of the most prevalent theories on the net. Well I too look at the collapse of those buildings and I just cannot conceive of all three buildings collapsing due to fire, in a manner previously unseen in the history of construction, on the same day. It's just too much of a coincidence during an event that already has far too many coincidences to feel right.

I presume it was this nagging doubt about the coincidental collapses that made people look to the Controlled Demolition route and thus was born the debate between the "jet-fuel fires collapse" and the "Controlled Demolition" ideas. Looking at the events objectively, however, neither explanation seems to fit the observations.

People have brought up eyewitness testimony from people claiming there were secondary explosions on the day and used these testimonies to support the Controlled Demolition idea but that doesn't fit. In many cases that isn't what the eyewitness is saying. In many cases the explosions being described were large explosions heard in advance of the buildings falling. In at least one case I have seen video evidence of a man describing an explosion that occurred BEFORE the first plane hit. That's not evidence of a Controlled Demolition. That's an explosion.

In a lot of the videos reports are made of very large and or very loud explosions. There are numerous accounts that use the terms secondary explosions - presumed, at the time, to be secondary devices. The word bombs was used in many accounts. Other than the one clip of the fireman talking about the floors "popping out one by one like they had plans to take down our building" I can't think of many eyewitness accounts that don't talk of single, large explosion sounds.

So assuming the path of least insider culpability at the very least it looks, from eyewitness accounts, that as well as the attack by the planes the conspirators had planted large explosive devices at several points throughout the building. Would these "bombs" going off not weaken the structure enough to ensure it's eventual collapse? No need to rig professionally for a Controlled Demolition. If the attackers just wanted the buildings down there would be no need to do it neatly.

In light of this I would have expected the notion of secondary explosives, planted by either the attackers or other, as yet unknown, accomplices to be examined fully as part of the investigation into the events but I have seen no sign that that happened. Instead we were presented, in less than 48 hours iirc, the full list of conspirators, how they had done it, why they had done it and who was behind it. That did not fit the pattern of behaviour that I had seen in other major catastrophes. The very government agencies that had been so blind to the very possibility of this attack could now solve the entire crime within 48 hours. That was too neat for my observant mind to cope with.

So possibly there still remains a third option. Could there not have been bombs planted by accomplices of the hijackers that brought down the buildings? Wouldn't this, at the very least, have been a pertinent line of enquiry?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: skyeagle409

But the US did go to war in Vietnam after fabricating a fake attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

And the US did go to war in Iraq after fabricating fake WMD evidence in front of the UN.

The first attack on the Maddox was not fabricated. The second attack on the Maddox and Turner Joy was not an attack but was the result of incorrect radar analysis in a squall. The TF commander stated that there was no attack. The confusion that followed in DC resulted in the resolution and US involvement in the war.
www.usni.org...

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

From the link in my previous message:

"Some historians do not let the Johnson administration off so easily. Army Colonel H. R. McMaster, author of the highly acclaimed 1997 book Dereliction of Duty, accused Johnson and McNamara of outright deception:


To enhance his chances for election, [Johnson] and McNamara deceived the American people and Congress about events and the nature of the American commitment in Vietnam. They used a questionable report of a North Vietnamese attack on American naval vessels to justify the president's policy to the electorate and to defuse Republican senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's charges that Lyndon Johnson was irresolute and "soft" in the foreign policy arena. 30

For his part, McNamara never admitted his mistakes. In his award-winning 2003 video memoirs Fog of War, he remained unapologetic and even bragged of his ability to deceive: "I learned early on never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you. And quite frankly, I follow that rule. It's a very good rule." 31

We may never know the whole truth behind the Tonkin events and the motivations of those involved. However, it is important to put what we do know into context. The administration's zeal for aggressive action, motivated by President Johnson's election worries, created an atmosphere of recklessness and overenthusiasm in which it became easy to draw conclusions based on scanty evidence and to overlook normally prudent precautionary measures. Without the full picture, Congress could not offer the checks and balances it was designed to provide. Subsequently, the White House carried the nation into the longest and one of the most costly conflicts in our nation's history. "


McNamara was a complete dirtball and Johnson was a politician who would sacrifice anything or anybody to get elected.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I remember the attack on the USS Maddox, I was in the Vietnam War.

In regard to WMD in Iraq, the United States did not fabricate WMD evidence, that was the work of Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān code named: "Curveball." I even watched on TV as he bragged about passing false WMD information to the United States. Here's more on him.

Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān (CurvebBall)
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

www.theguardian.com...

However, WMD was eventually found in Iraq.

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!

www.thepoliticalinsider.com...


WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

www.wired.com...


The WikiLeaks vindication of George W. Bush

A cache of 2600 rockets armed with chemical weapons were discovered along with at least 5000 WMD munitions.

"The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – and intended to restart his program once the heat was off."

www.wnd.com...

I might add that the United States did not go to war despite the fact that Iraq violated 16 UN Resolutions after the first Gulf War and I felt that the United States and the UN exercised great restraint as Iraq repeatedly violated those UN Resolutions.

.

a reply to: pteridine

The first attack on the Maddox was not fabricated. The second attack on the Maddox and Turner Joy was not an attack but was the result of incorrect radar analysis in a squall. The TF commander stated that there was no attack. The confusion that followed in DC resulted in the resolution and US involvement in the war.

It is believed that the NVA were in fact out on Gulf of Tonkin

Were there doing recovery of one of the damaged P4 torpedo boats from the earlier incident ......

a reply to: ComplexCassandra

So possibly there still remains a third option. Could there not have been bombs planted by accomplices of the hijackers that brought down the buildings? Wouldn't this, at the very least, have been a pertinent line of enquiry?

Good post, sure why not, they found at least two trucks filled with explosives so why not in the buildings..