The 'demolition' of the WTC

[Mal Jones]

I have just finished watching a fascinating lecture by Prof. Steven Jones regarding the physics of the WTC buildings and he does indeed present some compelling evidence to support the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosives.

However, I am uncomfortable with the number of people and the shear amount of resources that would have been clandestinely deployed to demolish the three buildings. I would imagine that there are only a handful of companies and maybe several hundred individual worldwide that has the knowledge to design and carry out this kind of work. If this had been a commercial contract it would have been the largest demolition contract ever placed and would have attracted tenders from the cream of demolition companies.

There are a handful of scenarios where this could have been done clandestinely and still remain a secret. If I have missed anything glaring then please put me straight.

1. The sneakies in the US government have a team of top-flight (and tight-lipped) demolition experts who were able to infiltrate the buildings in the weeks before the attacks and place and wire up hundreds of charges. If so, where did they get the specialist explosive? This stuff is manufactured by a handful of civilian companies and sales are carefully logged and controlled. Were they (again, dozens of people) kept quiet? Was all this preparation done under the noses, or with the connivance of, the hundreds of maintenance workers, janitors and others who would have had access to all parts of the buildings?

2. The sneakies employed a commercial demolition firm to clandestinely set and detonate the charges. How did the sneakies recruit the company and place the order? Did they strike lucky with their first “pssst – how would you feel about blowing up the WTC on the quiet” enquiry or did other companies turn them down? Every single person in the contracted company would have been involved. Were they all comfortable with murder? Did the sneakies pay them off with a fortune? If so didn’t their neighbours, friend or family notice? Did the sneakies have them all killed? Again, someone would have noticed.

3. The charges were in the buildings since they were built nearly 30 years before. This would have been a matter of record.

None of these scenarios can withstand any serious scrutiny but I can’t think of any other way the purported demolition could have been carried out. Either way you cut it several hundred ordinary people would need to have been willing murderers or have been bribed, threatened, killed or otherwise persuaded to keep quiet about this for 5 years.

I am new to all this and I am sure I am treading old ground so I would be obliged if someone could point out what I have missed. Fascinating though Prof. Jones’ theories are if it couldn’t have been done then it couldn’t have been done.

Don’t get me wrong; I am sure there is something very fishy about the events of 9/11 but, as I have remarked in another thread, by trying to provide the answers the truth movement is getting itself in knots and playing into the sneakies’ hands. We should be asking the questions and demanding the US government supplies the answers.

Thanks for your time
Mal Jones

[kbo234]

[physicist]

The first thing is to investigate how the towers collapsed. The current explanation is unacceptable. NIST have not issued a report on the collapse process after the collapse initiated. Hey, their model isn't too good for that bit. They need a few new laws of physics first. They haven't issued a report about WTC7. That's a tricky one.

Details of how it was done would then have to be determined afterwards.

[Andrew Johnson]

There is a fallacy of logic in some of these "how did they do it, then?" arguments.

We have multiple recorded video segments of all 3 towers collapsing at free-fall rates - WTC 7 into it's own footprint.

We have video of the demolition explosives going off.

We have audio of large explosions going off.

We have witness testimony of multiple explosions.

These are all facts.

"They couldn't have done it because I can't think of a way the explosives could have been planted".

This isn't a fact - it's a supposition. Whatever it took to plant these explosives, someone did it.

I've seen a TV illusionist make a harrier jumpjet "disappear".

There was a series on a while back called Jonathan Creek - revolving round a character who set up conjuring tricks. He said something along the lines of:

"The only reason why illusions work is because no one would believe you would (or could) go to that much trouble to pull them off."

For the Harrier Jump Jet trick, he probably made a life-sized photograph of it or something - but no one would believe he could go that trouble and carefully positioned it to fool the audience.

Again, just because you can't believe or work out how something has been set up doesn't mean it never happened. This line of thinking is flawed.

I believed the official story for about 3 years - now I've seen the evidence which shows it is false. So I have to get used to it.

Gravity cannot be debated with - as I have said over and over and over again. There is no question of "balance" with gravity - it is there and acts or it doesn't (when you are in space etc). There is no "other side of the argument".

[Mal Jones]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Kbo234
I would agree with you that the evidence for the demolition theory is compelling and would, at an enquiry, go a long way to proving the case but, for this very reason, the US government is unlikely to retreat from their entrenched position and start an independent inquiry of their own volition, particularly when the other “free” world governments continue to, at best, turn a blind eye.
However, if the demolition theory is correct there must be other ways of forcing the issue onto the public agenda. Even the US government cannot be infinitely resourced and at some stage must have had recourse to private contractors, civilian suppliers etc employing “ordinary” people. The US government can go on stonewalling till the cows come home and, until somebody say “yes, God help me, I was involved”, I fear that the scientific evidence, overwhelming though it is, will only be peripheral.
As I said in my original post the pool of companies and individual with the knowledge and wherewithal to bring down these buildings, clandestinely or otherwise, must be a limited one. Surely this could be a profitable line of investigation. Do you know if any work has been done in this direction?

Physicist
You are right that the ‘official’ explanation is wholly unacceptable and, as an engineer, I find the mechanics propounded by Prof. Jones very persuasive. However, he is preaching largely to the converted and surely the object is to bring in to the fold the sceptics, the ignorant and the unaware. All that the US government has said is that the buildings were brought down by the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires. I believe this should be attacked without too much hypothesising about what might have happened. If I were ‘unaware’ Joe Soap, I would be more persuaded by “the buildings could not have been brought down by ABC” than by “ but they could have been brought down by X or Y or Z or……..”.

Andrew
I hope I didn’t come across in my original post as a “how did they do it, then?” nitpicker, because to my mind there is nothing worse.
I appreciate your logic but you appear to have allowed yourself the luxury of deciding where to stop your line of logic and from which direction to approach it. Your line of reasoning appears to be “it clearly didn’t come down like they said – I am convinced by the evidence that it was brought down by explosives – they must have got the explosives in there somehow so I don’t need to think about the difficulties involved”. I might reason, with equal validity, “it clearly didn’t come down like they said – there is no way anybody could have set explosives without getting rumbled – so I don’t need to worry about those puffs of dust on the building exterior”.
You have been at this a long time and would imagine that you are conversant with all the history, evidence and theories of 9/11. As a relative newcomer I have spent only a couple of days trawling but I am struggling to find reasoned debate on the matter. Everybody seems to have a polarized agenda and is quite prepared to select evidence to support their chosen stance while conveniently ignoring contrary, though equally valid, evidence.
The four ‘facts’ that you quote are interpretations of observations, nothing more. Until they can be presented at an inquiry, or a court of law, they will be dismissed as speculation. The fact that the US government has done nothing to calm the growing chorus of indignation is quite sufficient for me to smell a rat.

Thanks for your time
Mal Jones

[blackcat]

Mal Jones

September 9th 2001 - Rumsfeld announces that $2,300,000,000,000 - (that is $8,000 + for every man, woman and child in the USA) has gone "missing" from the defence budget acccounts and cannot be explained. Hours later the part of the Pentagon where the bookkeepers and accountants are based, along with the records they were responsible for, was obliterated by a "plane" which vapourised on impact. Several hours later WTC7, not hit by a plane, which also contained important accountancy records as well as records pertaining to high level investigations of corruption, collapsed in a manner unheard of for a building of its construction. That is all anyone needs to know! It was an inside job!

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=2 94139541

Look at the post from killtown halfway down with links to the personnel at the Pentagon that was hit!


http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

And just to show you how ignorant people are of these events.

http://benfrank.net/blog/2006/01/07/incompetent_or_traitors

[Mal Jones]

Hi Black Cat

Thanks for the reply but I'm not sure I'm reading you right. Are you saying thay Rumsfeld made a fool of himself by saying that he couldn't manage his books and then. 2 days later, blew up the Pentagon to cover it up? Why not just blow up the Pentagon to cover it up?

Are you also saying that the New York target was actually WTC7 and that the Twin Towers wer collateral damage? Why not just attack WTC7 and have done with it? It would surely have been easier to hit and would have forestalled a lot of suspicion let having it apparently burn down.

Clearly something stinks, but not everything stinks.

[orestes]

I don't see why intelligence operatives couldn't have planted the bombs after acquiring the relevant knowledge - there are doubtless plenty of people in the intelligence services who specialize in explosives. Consequently, I don't accept the argument that it is implausible that a demolition was carried out. Furthermore, the idea that the US government is unable to cook up explosives without leaving a public record of their source is, to me at least, bizarre. The rest of your doubts seem to be highly speculative, dealing with other people who may have seen the bombs or would be in a position to discover them. These questions cannot be answered unless we have an idea of what bombs we are talking about etc. So I think your respondent was correct: the evidence for controlled demolition needs to be given first priority. Only when we are in a position to make specific claims about the size of the bombs etc will we be able to answer your other doubts.

[blackcat]

[Andrew Johnson]

Mal,

Thanks for your response. Yes, I have been at this for about well, maybe 2 years.

It's a big picture. What I wrote is not really "an interpretation" - it is all clearly visible on video. Yes, there are some small margins of error.

All our perception of reality "is an interpretation" if you want to describe it as such. Quite quickly, however, the discussion can move into the realms of solipsism and what the definition of "is" is.

Everything is probabilities. For example I, and many others, am certain enough to say from the evidence "explosives brought down the towers. This is a fact.".

I could be wrong - if I am/we are wrong, I have to think of ways the towers could have collapsed at free fall rate.

It's possible that there is some type of unknown energy field which surrounds the earth and is responsible for the cohesion of atoms. It's just that we haven't discovered it yet. It's also possible that this as yet undiscovered field had a wild and localised variation in NYC, in the structure of the 3 buildings and it caused them to collapse.

It's also possible that there is some as yet undiscovered super-gamma ray burst which is tightly focused and it just happened to impinge on the 3 towers on Sept 11th 2001 and cause them to disintegrate and collapse at free-fall rate.

I know I am being ridiculous - but I am trying to make a point. We can (and should try to) imagine any number of scenarios as to what happened at the towers, but ultimately we evaluate the available evidence and decide which is the most likely.

The simple points of evidence show that the very highest probability is that explosives (pre-planted) destroyed the towers.

Now that we have acknowledged that, we can move on the who, how and why questions.

Not until the answer to the "what" question is agreed upon can we do this.

[Newspeak International]

'Terrorism as Historical Geostrategy' part six chapter 16 from

The War on Truth by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844370593/203-5042438-7753564?v=gl ance&n=266239

Another angle to debate(quoting and paraphrasing)

If I'm breaking copyright law please say so.

The Boston Massacre 1770: in which British soldiers fatally shot five colonists was pivotal in the events leading up to the War of Independance
between England and the colonies which later became the US.
Evidence was brought out in the subsequent trial raised serious doubt
whether the massacre had not been precipitated by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty in an effort to turn the troops out of the metropolis.
Thirty eight witnesses testified that there had been a civilian plot to attack the soldiers, and the defence put forward evidence that the townspeople were the aggressors.

Captain Preston the man in charge of the soldiers was acquitted, and only two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter, punishment was mitigated to burning on the hand.

The Mexican-American War 1846

Similarly,the annexation of Mexico by the US was only able to proceed after the manufacture of a pretext.

Basically Texans lobied intensively for a war with Mexico, but could not
get support from the Northerners who actively opposed it.But carefully planned US policies had provoked Mexico into aggressive action, so tipping the balance in favour of a war.

Despite bribing soldiers with money and land, they did not get enough to partake in that war.
A General Zachary Taylor was sent to parade up and down the disputed border,until the Mexicans shot at him ...then it was war.

The Spanish-American War 1898

The sinking of the Maine in Havana harbour led to the usual outcry which swept the nation to war.
An explosion sunk the Maine and was exploited as the fault of Spain,some papers and politicians implied the Spanish had sunk the Maine.The war further expanded the US empire.

A 1976 investigation found the cause had been self inflicted-likely the result of a coal bunker fire.

US entry into WW1

The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 by a German submarine, helped turn the tide toward US entry into the war.
The sinking killed 1,198 civilians,including 128 Americans and despite it being known the ship may be a target, President Wilson dissuaded congress from officially warning US citizens from travelling on British ships.
UK prime minister Winston Churchill had previously commissioned "a study to determine the political impact if an ocean liner were sunk with Americans on board" and only a week before the sinking he wrote to the President of the Board of Trade that "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores,in the hope especially of embroiling the US with Germany"

Pearl Harbour
"There in no reasonable doubt that the Japanese attack in 1941 was provoked and allowed to happen"

Operation Northwoods 1960's presented but rejected by JFK.

Gulf of Tonkin 1964
exacerbated a wider bombing campaign.
.................
.................

9/11
Ignited the "war on terror" with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,posturing
for war with Iran,so far,the removal of civil rights bit by bit from the citizens of Britain and the US, and the selling off of the vital infrastrure
to foreign lands.All for the aim of The New World Order and the inter-dependant Global community.


N