BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:31 PM

"There is one video in, I think it was, the first link, to some NYC firemen talking right after...they said it was like a controlled demolition. I have to give some credence to their professional take on things. I don't consider them to be idiots."

The key words are "it was like". If you watch the video, the "professional" used the words "as if" they used controlled detonators. The tone that I heard was an individual trying to describe a scene to someone who was not there to see it. We all try to draw pictures when we describe situations and often offer examples to help illustrate it. If you really watch the video, I think that take becomes more evident. If this individual truly believed what he witnessed, I sincerely doubt he would have used those words and that tone.

Of course none of us can be sure. Still, I think reason and common sense needs to enter into our thinking. IF this "evidence" was stronger, I think more people would be buying into it. There is too much contrary evidence as well as the common sense factor that shouts out that there was no "controlled demolition" at work here.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 02:50 PM

I had to sit through an evening of this crap, and worse -- from my left liberal friends. There is also a good dose of anti-Semitism here -- another related piece of crap I heard that evening -- all the Jews were supposedly warned beforehand not to be there that morning. And so on.

It makes you just despair.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:03 PM

I am totally convinced that the Saudis, the U.S. government plotted this to gain control of the entire Middle East.

They have orchestrated and controlled this entire fiasco that we now call the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately for the U.S. economy and the world, retalliation will destroy the value of the American dollar when the Middle East converts to Euros.

The people of the Middle East hate Arab politics as much as they hate U.S. politics. Thats why they turn to religion. Who else can they trust but Allah?

Osama is just another U.S. govt. puppet. Thats why they can't find him and that's why they aren't even trying to find him. Instead, they kill thousands of innocents and pit Muslim against Muslim, Jews against Jews and Christians against Christians. All of this for the crimes of the wily 'Osama'.

Its amazing to me how people would rather indulge in hatred than logical thinking. Governments and religion are conspiring to control the masses and we are rapidly losing all of the rights and freedoms that have been hard won over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:03 PM

Right--that canard about the Jews being warned has been around for quite a while---and evidently many in the Mideast believe this garbage.

And now there are Western Europeans and Americans available to put their stamp of approval on this stuff. Just great.

Again, as I said on another thread, this all plays into the hands of extremists--and of course we have Bush to thank, in large part, for the strength of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government.   Not only Hezbollah's efficient delivery of social services, but also their propaganda--thanks to Mr. Bush--played a role.

The argument was: the US and Israel have a plan for the Mideast--first Iraq, then Syria, then Hezbollah. "And we must resist".   Shiites could see the first part of the plan being put into action--courtesy of Mr. Bush. Which made the rest plausible. And makes them more likely to also believe stories like the Jews being warned, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

Dianavan--you've got to stop insisting on massive conspiracy theories. The opposition to the Bush regime has to use our heads--not just our imaginations.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:12 PM

It was evil Dick Cheney and the evil Halliburton. George Bush is just a puppet of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

Whatever you say, Old. I'm sure you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:23 PM

Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the US without being questioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM

"Why do some people have such a HUNGER for marvels and dirty secrets and conspiracies?"

Easy, I said it before, I'll say it again - they need therapy. F*****g nutters, the lot of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:31 PM

The rest of the family do not endorse Osama's ideas. Also, can you spell L Y N C H M O B?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:37 PM

Johnny-

I suppose it's because some people like to believe every word of the Bible literally (finessing the contradictions). And some like all-encompassing conspiracies.

A lot of people like simple answers--and don't like messy, or inconclusive ones.

Of course it does relieve them of the responsibility to think--maybe they like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM

If you continue to put your head in the sand, you will be unable to change anything.

The world economy is in big trouble as a result of the increasing U.S. defecit which is a result of the failure of the 'War on Terrorism'. Read this and make up your own mind.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20422171-1702,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

I totally agree about the US deficit being a serious problem. But that does not mean that the US has a plan to take over the Mideast. I'm afraid we'll need some actual evidence of that one.

In fact a strong argument can be made that Bush would like nothing more than to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow---but he wants to be able to declare victory (again).

Slightly awkward at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:46 PM

Get ready for a really disturbing thought...




















We'll all probably never know for sure who did exactly what on 911 and who planned it and how they did it and why. ;-)

I certainly don't expect to. I accept the fact that I'm going to die one day without having known the answer to everything before I went.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM

Well, LH, you must be the only one. The rest of us are going to insist on knowing EVERYTHING before we die. I suppose we'll have to see what downsides there are to immortality. We'll also somehow have to stop the aging process-- that might take a little work.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST,GC
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM

Hey Little Hawk!

If you accept that you're going to die without ever knowing the answer to everything, why is it that, for years, you've always acted like you do?

GC

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:52 PM

...if GWB masterminded this tragedy for whatever reason, then he is dumber than I usually give him credit for.

For many reasons. The worst terrorist tragedy happened on his "watch" (a Reaganism we are forever saddled with). It made him look like a bumbling idiot.

It sent the US economy into a recessive downspin, from which we have never fully recovered. (Despite Clinton's flaws, one thing he did seem to be rather adept at was managing the economy. Check his record on this, using whatever benchmark you choose.) People remember well when something hits their collective pocketbooks hard (which is why I think Bush's re-election was rigged. Surely all those Wall Street types couldn't have voted for him again when their portfolios are the equivalent of toilet paper).

So he did it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan in search of the ever-elusive bin Laden (an exceptionally tall Arab lugging around a dialysis machine, and our state-of-the-art sophisticated spyware can't find him? ... but "they" can read the license plate on your car from asynchronous orbits miles and miles above the earth)? Christ, could we not have consulted our (now) Russian friends on their experiences battling the "rebels" in moutainous terrain? Seems like they might've learned a thing or two in the interminable years they spent in that quagmire.

Or if he'd wished to query domestic resources, he could've asked any Kentucky, Tennessee, or North Carolina "hillbilly" just how effective the "revenooer's" war has been against the availabilty of buying a quart of high-octane "shine" or an ounce of primo dope. Mountain folk, by design and evolution, have to be tough to survive.
   
...Or did he do it so he could invade Iraq? Saddam, that bastard... had everything to do with 9/11 (as we were told) and besides he was hoarding piles of WMDs to use against us as soon as he'd sold all his oil to Exxon (even though it doesn't make sense to blow up your best customers).

Hell, since when has Bush ever needed a reason to do anything? He answers to a "higher Father" after all, and he doesn't need to explain anything to a country full of hayseeds and mind-numb couch potatoes as long as his vacuous speeches to the 'Merkun people don't pre-empt a rerun of "Friends" on TV.

Maybe God doesn't like Bush. Maybe God told Bush to blow up the Twin Towers because God wanted Bush to look stupid. There's a conspiracy theory for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 03:56 PM

If Israel didn't exist, there would have been no need for the Jews to have brought down the towers, pin it on the Arabs, and cause the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

I'm not suggesting that Ron has his 'head in the sand' but some of the posters on this thread, do. I do not believe the collapse of the twin towers is as simple as 'Osama and his band of terrorists' are to blame. If he were, he would have been captured or killed by now.

Conspiracies can and do happen. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the U.S. government has conspired to disrupt the governments of other countries for a very long time. It is at the expense of others that the U.S. has grown so rich.

I thought 'the shit was going to hit the fan' when Nixon was in power. I thought that wide-ranging poverty would lead to civil war. I was wrong. It just led to the thirty years of constipation.

I now think that when Cuba, Venezuela and Iran state their allegiance to each other in an effort to protect themselves from the U.S.; North Korea and China will not be far behind. How long do you think that U.S. can withstand that kind of pressure? Economically, this does not bode well for the world.

The so-called 'war on terrorism' is a conspiracy in itself. The collapse of the twin towers was just a catalyst. It has backfired in a very big way.

Once again, I am looking for a retreat. A place where I will not be affected by the world economy. A place where I can feed my family without being dependent on retail outlets. A place where I don't need a car. A place where I can breathe fresh air and drink clean water.

In other words, its time to go back to the land. Those of you who are dependent on electricity, city water systems, other people to provide food and clothing, gas and oil should be making alternative plans. I don't think an election will make a difference. They've gone too far this time and complacency and apathy has allowed it to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:07 PM

Sorry, I disagree with you--it was, as I said earlier, a godsend to him. First you had the rally round the flag syndrome. In fact most of the world sympathized with the US directly after 9-11. Look at that capitalist bastion Le Monde:   "We Are All Americans"   Etc.

Then he had the vast majority of the US behind him in attacking toppling the Taliban--and hunting Osama.

If he'd left it at that, he would have been considered a successful wartime president.

But he squandered the whole thing by invading Iraq--though that seemed successful for a time.

And even so he managed to win the 2004 election--by a successful propaganda campaign, and help from the UN, of all unlikely sources of aid to Bush. As I've said before, the UN's willingness to act as honest broker--and help put an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency--put the lie to the Vietnam quagmire theory--at least until after November 2004. And that's all Bush needed. Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:10 PM

Because I'm human, GC. ;-) But I am happy to admit any time to my own foolishness and fallibillity, because I'm very philosophical by nature. Most humans, I think, would rather die first than do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:34 PM

"Once again, I am looking for a retreat. A place where I will not be affected by the world economy. A place where I can feed my family without being dependent on retail outlets. A place where I don't need a car. A place where I can breathe fresh air and drink clean water."


Let us pray that Dianavan finds her retreat quickly and that it does not have Internet access so that we can be spared her blithering.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:37 PM

Stop complaining. Cheap entertainment. And she can't be the only one to have those attitudes--so it's instructive also.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

This place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that there are other people who think differently from themselves. I wish I got paid a penny for every keystroke they type while unloading their bile and aggravation. I could soon buy Manhattan and turn it into a penguin hatchery.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM

No Little Hawk, this place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that other people think for themselves. When some of us see flawed data and call it, we are suddenly accused of not having open minds or trying to tell others how to think. Being philosophic is not an excuse for turning fantasy into reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Willie-O
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:19 PM

To get back to the topic, I too have seen enough analysis to convince me that what visibly happened to WTC 1 & 2--aircraft collisions & intense fires resulting in structural damage causing collapse--was plenty catastrophic enough to take the buildings down. After all, we didn't have a lot of precedents to inform us what would happen when fully fuelled jetliners hit 110-story buildings (whatever their design parameters might have been) at the 90th level. Now, unfortunately, we have two.

The event that really puzzles me though is the subsequent collapse late in the day of WTC 7. That building wasn't hit by planes, although it was certainly damaged by debris from the two main towers, and subsequent fire.

Have you seen the video footage showing WTC7 going down? Take a look at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html . It fell so straight down, it appears to be suddenly sinking into a hole.

It looks like an absolutely controlled demolition going off perfectly. I just haven't heard any more likely explanation.

The "inside job" theorists claim that WTC7 housed the control centre for the blasts that took down the main towers, then was destroyed to hide the evidence. I don't know about that, but the sudden perfectly balanced collapse of a building that had taken secondary damage...has not been satisfactorily explained.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:23 PM

I do not believe the collapse of the twin towers is as simple as 'Osama and his band of terrorists' are to blame. If he were, he would have been captured or killed by now.

I'm a Brit. I was too young to remember the IRA's campaign in the 70s, but I vividly remember what they did in the 80s and 90s.

Let's compare countries. Afghanistan: area 652k km2, population 30m. UK: area 244k km2, population 60m. Northern Ireland: area 14k km2, population 1.7m. So look how much more populous the UK is, and therefore how much harder it'd be to hide. And look at the overwhelming military dominance of the UK Army in NI compared to the situation in Afghanistan. And then think how many IRA bombers got caught (not that many, and the wrongful convictions that resulted weren't exactly the nation's finest hour).

And then repeat what I quoted, with a straight face...

I don't mean to be rude, but when you say something like that, a reality check is seriously in order.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:30 PM

The other thing, Guest 4:34 is that when she talks about other topics, Walmart for instance, she makes a lot of sense.

And she has the guts to stick by a handle--which you, dear Guest, have somehow not found the fortitude to do. Wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:35 PM

Grab - I don't think the IRA ever pulled of anything as big as the 'twin towers' and I don't think Britain ever bombed Ireland as a result.

To compare the two situations is comparing apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:38 PM

"Have you seen the video footage showing WTC7 going down? Take a look at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html . It fell so straight down, it appears to be suddenly sinking into a hole."

Check out this site.
911myths.com

There are more plausible explanations as well as the various conspiracy theories listed here. When you can read all the theories and see the evidence for each, the idea of a conspirarcy seems more remote.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 05:48 PM

What is difficult for me to understand is, in the face of so much evidence of U.S. conspiracy in the affairs of other nations, how people can swallow, 'hook line and sinker' the U.S. version of what really happened. Conspiracy theorists may not have the 'right' answer but at least they have the guts to question the official version of the story.

Seems to me that we are, once again, protecting the bully.

Why should we believe that 'Osama did it' when he cannot be found?

We can't prove he is guilty unless we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:00 PM

Dianavan--

I think what he is questioning is that there should be any surprise that Osama has not been "bagged"--given the nature of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:04 PM

"in the face of so much evidence of U.S. conspiracy in the affairs of other nations, how people can swallow, 'hook line and sinker' the U.S. version of what really happened."

What "evidence"?   There is a lot of theories that do not make sense when you examine them.

Think for yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

If Osama is in Afghanistan and the U.S. wants to bag him, why are there so many U.S. troops in Iraq?

Seems to me if you really want to find the guy, you would look in the country where you think he is hiding, not leave it up to other countries to do your police work.

I'm a Canadian, and I resent sending our troops to Afghanistan to do what the U.S. should be doing. After all, its the U.S. who claims they were targetted by Osama. I see a pattern here. The U.S. invades a country and then leaves it up to their 'friends' to clean up after them. This is not MY war. If the U.S. wants Osama, they should at least try to find him not ask others to do their dirty work.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:10 PM

No Little Hawk, this place is filled with people who can't bear the fact that other people think for themselves. When some of us see flawed data and call it, we are suddenly accused of not having open minds or trying to tell others how to think. Being philosophic is not an excuse for turning fantasy into reality. Amen to that, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:23 PM

**READ** the site Ron Olesko posted....read it in detail....look at the images...study the diagrams.

It all makes sense when you SEE the actual evidence of what heat can do and how small the pieces can be when a plane hits a solid structure like the Pentagon....but the piece are there. People are carrying some of them.

WTC7 was hit by fire & debris from an enormous catastrophe, and it was ON FIRE in several places and levels....and there was no time or way to fight those fires. IT FELL DOWN!

Jeeeeze!

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:26 PM

Bill, there is no point. Certain folks here have an agenda with regard to the US, and will attempt to make the evidence support that. This is some crazy stuff. They don't see that they lose all credibility when they insist that "something doesn't smell right" in the face of all evidence.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

An after thought. I find it interesting that the same folks here that refuse to accept what the evidence and investigation so clearly point out, are the same ones in the kosher chicken thread telling people of faith that they prefer science and its provable conclusions, and implying that the faith folks are just following myths.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

Dianavan - I agree with you on at least one point - it is very odd that Bin Laden cannot be found. There is more to this then they are letting on.   This ugly stupid war that we are involved in is wrong and Bush should be impeached for his actions.

Still, getting back to the topic of this thread, my above thoughts on Bush would not make me think that 9/11 was planned in the way the conspiricy folks are trying to make us believe. The evidence is too strong to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:26 PM

Ron - I don't have any reason to think it was a controlled demolition but at the same time I have no reason to believe that terrorists could fly into the World Trade Center without being detected. Like you say, Ron, there is more to this than they are letting on.

Whenever there are big holes in the 'official' explanation, that leaves alot of room for speculation. 'Conspiracy' is a catch phrase someone thought up to discredit those who engage in speculation.

At least those who are questioning are showing that they can think for themselves. Others prefer to 'tow the line' and believe everything they are told. The same people are very likely obedient to their church 'fathers'.

I think its more of a mind-set than anything else. You either like other people to do your thinking for you or you prefer to think for yourself. There are many shades in between.

I think I'll join a church so I don't have to think anymore. Maybe I'll become a fundamentalist and I'll have both God and the U.S. government on my side. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The twin towers toppled because of God's wrath, dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 07:48 PM

No Diana, you have it backwards. It is you who is not thinking. You let your need to trash everything US get in the way of your judgement. Bin Laden says he did it. Bush says Bin laden did it. The video evidence says he did it. The engineering studies show how it happened, and back up the obvious conclusion. Read Jeri's comments. I concur completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:09 PM

"Bin Laden says he did it. Bush says Bin laden did it. The video evidence says he did it. The engineering studies show how it happened, and back up the obvious conclusion."

I am prone to believe the engineering studies (but they can also be bribed) more than I am to believe either Bush or Bin Laden. Why would you believe either? A false premise does not lead to the truthful conclusion.

...and Mick -

Your comment above shows your need to 'trash', not mine.

btw - I've made no judgement about what happened to the twin towers but I am smart enough not to draw conclusions based on 'blind faith'.

How do you know that Bush and Bin laden have not colluded?

How do you explain the fact that the U.S. military is more interested in Iraqi politics than finding Bin Laden?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:18 PM

I believe that Bush should be impeached for his actions, or lack thereof, in the hunt for bin laden.

Your question on explaining the interest in Iraqi politics indicates that you don't understand what one of the roles of Special Forces troops is.

To suggest that Bush and Bin Laden have colluded speaks for itself to anyone reading this thread.

It seems to me that you are really reaching on this one. Just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Keef
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 08:25 PM

"All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Simon and Garfunkel said that.

"I have always had some misgivings about the neat way in which both towers collapsed from the top down and fell perfectly vertically into their own footprint."

I said that.

I'm not an anti semite, I'm not an idiot.

Show me the engineers reports explaining the collapse.
(not including Popular Mechanics or Readers Digest!)

Can we start by deciding which structure we are talking about.
i.e. the reinforced concrete model as shown in the construction photographs, or the "house of cards" FEMA model.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:04 PM

Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the USA without being questioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:16 PM

"It's just conspiracy theories on the Left--to balance those on the Right"

This level of "theory" doesn't have much of anything to do with any coherent political wing, left or right. It's just about people who
will insist that Marilyn Monroe and Lee Harvey Oswald were really both assassinated by Captain Kangaroo, if someone once comes up with
forty pages of convoluted "proof" to that effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:21 PM

By the nature of the damage, assuming you believe, as I do, that the damage was caused by aircraft full of fuel flown into the structures, it is reasonable that the towers collapsed into their own footprints. The towers were damaged not at, but near their tops, creating severe structural damage that would have supported the remainder of the buildings had not the heat of burning fuel, paperwork, furniture, plastics critically weakened the structural steel that remained. This left the intact part of the structure overhead like a big hunk of mass ready to start dropping down on the 'layercake' structure of suspended concrete floors. The lower part of the structure and its foundations were intact until the very end, forming a kind of supported tube within which the failure occurred. Once the big mass at the top tore loose, I suppose it might have veered a bit to one side or the other, but the floors below had basically one way to go - straight down.

Remember that the second tower was hit lower down, leaving a bigger mass up top to hold up with the diminishing strength of the steel supports. The failure occurred ahead of the tower which had been hit first, only higher up.

The 1993 big bomb in the parking garage, had it been bigger, as Ramzy Yusef said afterwards, might have resulted in a very different collapse footprint.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

Big Mick - "Your question on explaining the interest in Iraqi politics indicates that you don't understand what one of the roles of Special Forces troops is."

Maybe you can explain to me the role of the Special Forces as it relates to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

I didn't suggest that Bush and Bin Laden colluded. I asked you to prove that they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:17 PM

If this is all a conspiracy on the grandest scale possible, then it is impossible to do anything. We are helpless pawns in a global scheme, and no matter what we do it will be subverted and ruined.

That is what all this nonsense amounts to. It is a form of giving up. It is to throw your hands up and say that the people in power are infinitely more cunning and ruthless than we ever dreamed.

The truth is that they are not. They can be beaten. Their conspiracies are open and obvious, and based on mistakes and stupidity.   They are mere mortals and unable to organize even a simple war.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Twin Towers Controlled Demolition?
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Sep 06 - 10:20 PM

Dianavan,

Explain your "undetected" comment. The planes were watched from the time their erratic flight paths began until they were so low that radar could not follow them. The transponders were turned off, so the air traffic controllers did not know their altitude, but they could estimate their groundspeed and knew their flight direction. Once they determined that a hijack situation was unfolding most controllers thought the planes were headed for Cuba - their intial turns were to the south.

An F-15 was scrambled from an air base to intercept the second of the two jets that hit the towers, but it arrived mere minutes after the jet hit the building. What is still unclear is what they would have done if they had arrived before the jet hit the tower. The "shoot" order had not been issued at that time. The jets scrambled to intercept the jet that ultimately went down in PA probably would have been given "shoot" orders, but there is even some doubt that they would have made it to DC before the jet hit the White House.

All four jets were watched until seconds before they were destroyed. What exactly do you mean by "undetected?"

Freightdawg

(by the way, I was one of the many thousands of other pilots that were flying that day. I will never get the chill out of my bones that occured when I heard the order that all planes were to land asap regardless of origin or destination. It was clear. Land now. Shut up and ask your questions on the ground. The controllers managed to do the most incredible, professional and almost impossible job imaginable without one mishap. Their accomplishment on that day is the stuff of true heroism. Their story needs to be told as much as any of the "first responders" on that horrible and bleak day.)