conspiracy theory

[KEND]

Re the plane controls: I recall , about 3 months before 9/11, seeing a TV drama in which the villain hacked into an airliner controls and headed it towards the WTC, of course they managed to get control back. Script writer as clairvoyant? or maybe he copied someone elses real life script

[Darthwing Teorist]

Or it was a coincidence.

[shawnsegler]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=dollar+bill+twin+towers+fold&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=3amaS8a_NIm0tgfMhbxa&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQsAQwAw

[Michael]

Controlled demolition is a rare and specialized profession requiring extensive expertise that only a small number of companies in the world possess. The purpose is, just as the name implies, to demolish a building in a controlled fashion in order to prevent damage to surrounding structures and also to utilize the building's own weight as a destructive force in order to decrease the total clean-up time after it falls. If buildings normally fell in a predictable or controlled way into their own footprint when a random force was used to initiate their collapse, there would be no need to hire controlled demolition experts or allow them the weeks that it takes to create a detailed plan for efficient structural failure and wire them with synchronized explosives. The two key concepts here are controlled demolition and random force because they do not co-exist. A random (unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable) force sufficient to demolish a building can not achieve results that are identical to a controlled demolition. If by some chance it occurs, which is nearly impossible, then for it to occur three times in one day is completely beyond plausibility.

The government alleges a conspiracy theory where 19 hijackers crashed one plane each into WTC1 and WTC2, and the result was that these two buildings and WTC7 caught fire and collapsed due to structural failure resulting from the fire; WTC1 & WTC2 within a couple of hours and WTC7 about 7 hours after the initial impact. Prior to these three buildings, and since these three buildings, no other steel sky scrapers in history, anywhere in the world, have ever collapsed due to fire.

All three buildings collapsed into their own footprints with little lateral deviation from vertical, which is exactly how it happens during a controlled demolition. If planes and/or fire caused these collapses, and those forces must be considered random, unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable, how can the results be identical to a controlled demolition for not just one, but three separate buildings?

The leaseholder of the buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in a PBS interview that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Considering it takes weeks to wire a building that large, how did they know?

[Steve James]

Do any or all of the few specialized companies that do controlled demolition say that it must have been a controlled demolition? What, in fact, do the experts "on cd" say?

The government alleges ... that these two buildings and WTC7 caught fire and collapsed due to structural failure resulting from the fire; WTC1 & WTC2 within a couple of hours and WTC7 about 7 hours after the initial impact.

Then,

The leaseholder of the buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in a PBS interview that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition

So, which is it? Apparently the gov't "doesn't" allege or claim that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition.

All three buildings collapsed into their own footprints with little lateral deviation from vertical

If WTC7 was admittedly controlled, then the fact that it collapsed the way it did isn't relevant. But, just sticking to the two towers, what "should" have happened? How should they have collapsed? I mean, should they have toppled sideways? Personally, I ask "why"? They didn't fall from the lateral impact of the planes. What physical force/law would make the Towers collapse in "any" other way? The professional, expert demolition companies should have had something to say on that by now. Do you have any reports from them/

[Michael]

I laid a lot of this out in the previous thread on the topic.

Do any or all of the few specialized companies that do controlled demolition say that it must have been a controlled demolition? What, in fact, do the experts "on cd" say?

One of the companies in the US said early on it was obviously CD, then he retracted.

Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko is shown video of the WTC 7 collapse and immediately concludes it's controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Also, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is a group of over 1,000 licensed architects and engineers who are dissatisfied with the various five NIST explanations for the collapse of the buildings, each one contradicting the previous, none of them conforming to previous experience, and AE911Turth is petitioning for a new investigation.

The government alleges ... that these two buildings and WTC7 caught fire and collapsed due to structural failure resulting from the fire; WTC1 & WTC2 within a couple of hours and WTC7 about 7 hours after the initial impact.

Then,

The leaseholder of the buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in a PBS interview that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition

So, which is it? Apparently the gov't "doesn't" allege or claim that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition.

You'll need to read the link I posted about Silverstein. Three years later he waffled through a spokesperson, but without making any sense about it. He originally used the phrase "pull it" in the interview, which means blow the building, then later said it means to pull the fire fighters out, but there weren't any inside, so his retraction makes no sense.

If WTC7 was admittedly controlled, then the fact that it collapsed the way it did isn't relevant.

If it was CD, then how did they know weeks in advance to wire the building to be blown on 9/11? If it wasn't CD, then how did it fall perfectly into its own footprint at freefall speed?

But, just sticking to the two towers, what "should" have happened? How should they have collapsed?

In a random, uncontrolled fashion, not in a controlled way nearly identical to each other as well as other instances of CD.

The basic logical question remains: if the results were the same as controlled demolition, how could it have been initiated from a random event?

[Steve James]

One of the companies in the US said early on it was obviously CD, then he retracted.

Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko is shown video of the WTC 7 collapse and immediately concludes it's controlled demolition.

Aw, c'mon. There's no disagreement about WTC7's controlled demolition. What you say above doesn't answer the question. And, no, I'm not about to read your old threads, especially when you are posting new claims or old claims. If I read it in the past and didn't buy it, I ain't going back now.

The basic logical question remains: if the results were the same as controlled demolition, how could it have been initiated from a random event?

And, the basic logical answer remains: "we" (the majority of people, engineers, architects and scientists) don't have a positive (alternative) explanation. Well, I would say "you" don't; but, you do. The "experts" don't ... or you'd have provided it. You pointed to an expert who changed his mind. Are all the rest (professional demo experts) just hushed up, paid off, or do they agree with the rest of "us."

You didn't answer the question about what this random event should looked like. I.e., an uncontrolled demolition should have looked like. That would be new and interesting information for me. I understand the premise that the buildings should not have collapsed. Nobody'd ever seen a steel building that large fall, and no company had ever done one. But, I don't understand the premise that nothing should happen if an entire floor of steel is compromised. I.e., I don't believe a plane can bring down a building. I believe it can bring down a floor. And, I can imagine that, if floor 84 collapses onto floor 83, that floor 82 can't support it. As for the footprint, I don't understand how it could have been anywhere else unless the building toppled or exploded. I'm not even bringing up the obvious issue of pulverization caused by the sheer mass of the steel, aluminum, plastic and glass building. I collected stuff from the towers on rooftops in Brooklyn.

[Michael]

Uh-huh, hope you're enjoying yourself here.

[Chris Fleming]

^^Dude, some people just want to play.