I'll leave the technical debates about buildings cores and such to the rest of you.

I'd like to comment instead about the geopolitical plans espoused by the people in the PNAC and by Zbegniev Brzezinski...

The funny thing is, there's nothing all that unusual about such plans being made by people in a dominant military power. That kind of thing has been done by most, if not all, dominant and expanding geopolitical powers. They always hatch a variety of possible contingency plans to see how they might be able to enlarge their "footprint" on the world, as it were. Those plans usually involve the possibility of war, if necessary to achieve an objective (assuming that less violent methods cannot accomplish said objective).

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the world became a very unstable place, because there was no longer a balance of power in the world betwee the 2 largest imperial systems: the Soviets and the American military-industrial collossus. With the Soviets falling apart and much of their former empire splintering into small independent states, there was a huge opportunity for corporate "carpetbaggers" to rush in and take financial advantage...which they did, of course. There was also a huge opportunity for playing various political games, and that provoked further instability in the world.

This soon morphed into terrible wars in the Balkans, during Clinton's administration. It also produced a series of wars in the Middle East and in other areas.

It was natural for imperial planners in the USA to seek every possible advantage and every way of increasing the USA's strength and power in the world following the collapse of the Soviets. All empires attempt to take advantage of such situations when they arise. They extend their power into the vacuum....and the local people usually resist the extension of that power...and wars follow.

The USA had pressing strategic reasons to secure power over key oil-producing areas in the Middle East and in the Caspian...given the fact that we have probably already reached "peak oil" and are on the downslope toward more and more expensive oil and a shrinking supply.

Outright official colonialism isn't politically acceptable anymore...so one achieves it now by causing "regime change" in a small country, and by then putting in a client regime which does what you tell it to in regards to oil policy. That is, you do that if bribery and other forms of influence can't accomplish it first. The last resort in achieving regime change and putting a client government in place is to invade and conquer a country, tell the world that you are doing it to give them "democracy" (Ha! Ha! Ha! Rolling on the floor here...) Anyway, you invade them, crush their army, bring down their government, put in a bunch of puppet pet politicians who are toothless phonies, create the appearance of democracy by producing at least two political parties to run against each other...but you don't allow the creation of any political party which represents the people of the old regime. It's a very nicely orchestrated piece of propaganda nonsense to give the world the impression that you attacked the place out of the goodness of your heart and to help the people, when in fact you were simply adding another key piece to the jigsaw puzzle of your imperial order.

Hence, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.

But how do you get your own public to support going to war when there is no overt cause or real threat that would make them want to go to war against Iraq or Afghanistan?????

Well, you invent supposed threats, number one. But that may not prove sufficient to get your public to agree to fighting an unprovoked war.

Okay....you provide an overt cause. An attack on the USA. If no one else will do it, you do it yourself and put the blame on someone else. If no other national government will do it, you find a few fanatical idiots somewhere in the population of the other country and you help them accomplish an attack on the USA...there will be way of helping them, and they won't even realize that you are helping them...all the better.

One way or another, whatever works, you make sure that some kind of attack occurs...something that will infuriate the American public enough so that they lose all coherent judgement and give support to foreign wars for which there is no rational justification.

And that is why I think there was a domestic plot to in some way orchestrate or enable the 911 attacks, and a plot at high levels...whether or NOT there was a controlled demolition of any building...whether or NOT the attack was committed solely by 19 hijackers from Al Qaeda....I think it was part of an overall much larger strategic plan hatched by people in the USA.

I don't KNOW so. I merely think so. It seems very likely to me...because it provided precisely the "Pearl Harbor-level event" that the planners in the PNAC desired in order to make the geopolitical moves they wanted to make in the new century...and these were moves they considered absolutely NECESSARY to the future postion of the USA, and that's why they would do it. They would feel that the cost was justified by the result.

Too convenient by half to be mere happenstance, if you ask me.