Issues with 9-11

[Michael Hardner]

The way I see it as that you can prove that there is a conspiracy using one of three methods

(1) Look at the physical evidence and read the official story in any one of the accidents at WTC1,2 & 7 as well as the Pentagon. You could build a case on the evidence from any one of these sites does not even closely suggest the official line.

(2) You could look at the series of co incidences around it - the US army coudn't shoot down those planes. They were conducting an exercise of the same thing (read rehearsal). The WTC was entirely shut down weeks before - in a way such as never before - all the personnel were cleared out. Bushes brother was in charge of security and did something very unusual before the crashes. The planes that hit the pentagon hit it where no one was working. All the physical evidence is gone- the planes in the Pentagon and in Pennisilvania - gone. The building wreckages - gone (illegally)

(3) The government coverups and all of the lies. The fact that it was used to justify a war against terror and that Iraq was identified as a member of the Axis Of Evil. They even had most Americans thinking Saddam Hussein masterminded the attacks without coming out and explicitly saying this. It was a huge psyc - ops operation. The governement did not act as if the official line was true.

Come on - "War Against Terror", "Axis Of Evil". This was a marketing campain. The idea was sold in 1 minute sound bites.

You can't look at the physical evidence yourself, and even if you could then you'd need an expert to tell you what you were looking at. You rely on authorities to explain everything for you.

Suffice it to say, the issue comes down to: you simply don't trust the establishment authorities but you do trust a different set of authorities.

Picking through the wreckage, or through millions of events that happened before and after 9-11 is bound to turn up some unexplained happenstances. You can't expect everything to be explained and certainly nothing has turned up that would overturn a common sense evaluation of what happened.

Your third point implies that the government mean to kill up to fifty thousand or more of its own inhabitants in a massive coverup that would require operational authority from every level of government, thousands of individuals, and hundreds of public and private organizations.

Imagine what it would require to find people who were willing to play along with such a plan, to plant them in place or two recruit them and ensure their complicity. Imagine the years of planning that would be required. Imagine the cost. Imagine the risks that it would fail.

A single well placed individual could back out of the plan, or die, and the whole thing would have to be changed. Or a single person could let out part of the secret and the plan could be ruined.

All of this, supposedly, was done so that the US could invade Iraq. Do you think the US needs a similar plan to invade Iran ? Will they destroy Los Angeles in order to do so ? Will they fly a plane into the White House to justify invading Syria ?

If these plans sound crazy, they're on the same scale of what you're saying happened on 9-11.

[PolyNewbie]

You can't look at the physical evidence yourself, and even if you could then you'd need an expert to tell you what you were looking at. You rely on authorities to explain everything for you.

No. The WTC buildings looked like controlled demolition and not like anything else. The Pennsilvania crash looked unlike any other air crash - debris spread for miles. The plane that hit the Pentagon turned to dust or dissapeared.

nothing has turned up that would overturn a common sense evaluation of what happened.

Everything has done that- all of the evidence and including the lack of it suggest the official line is not even close to reality.

Your third point implies that the government mean to kill up to fifty thousand or more of its own inhabitants in a massive coverup that would require operational authority from every level of government, thousands of individuals, and hundreds of public and private organizations.

Look up Operation Northwoods. The gov't thinks its possible thats for sure. With a professional army you get to do whatever you want.

All of this, supposedly, was done so that the US could invade Iraq. Do you think the US needs a similar plan to invade Iran ? Will they destroy Los Angeles in order to do so ? Will they fly a plane into the White House to justify invading Syria ?

They thought it would work on Russia (Northwoods), why not these countries ?

[KrustyKidd]

Enough of this crap. Here is Op Northwoods

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Ok, so the government can think of things like that. Now, read what ON says and tell me how high tech that is. Shooting people, sinking rafts, hijacking a plane etc.

Now, tell me how a plane disappears, how people on film disappear. How enough explosives are put into buildings to do what was done all without one person seeing anything. Then tell me how, how in Gods name with so many senior people having second thoughts on Iraq and such that nobody, not one person has said they planted one single explosive device, saw one, heard a person talk about it etc. I mean, it must have taken thousands of people to carry out those simultanious operations yet not one peep.

Furthermore, this must have all been done on toilet paper to boot as no secretaries have come forward with mysterious memos and such. Now, while you are comming up with all this, (which needent be factual) explain how those importent people were able to get time away from the press, their staff, family and such so they could become part of this conspiracy. I mean, did whoever was in charge put an ad in the 'Secret Times' or did they canvas door to door? Hust come up with something other than the mysterious things which were not explained so that you can show how this DID happen.

You people always go on with conjecture and such yet never go to the rationale and reasoning which is anybody who did this is setting themselves up for the death penalty. So, how many people would it take to pull this off? All of them would get injection, the Republican party would be dead, there would be a revolution in the USA. Like think about it, we were all terribly shook up the day that happened so how shook up would you be if you actually caused it? The lady who checked one of the hijackers in commited suicide afterwards so now you tell me how you screen the thousands of guys (in secret to boot) who would be needed to carry this out. All of them wouldn't be able to lead normal lives without looking over their shoulders and, the leaders would be sweating bullets that one, one of a thousands of people might blow it by saying how he saw a guy carting in det cord one night in the WTC.

Iraq was invaded under resolution 687, not 911. 911 provided the popularity for it is all. America didn't have any other reason to invade Iraq other than to put the drill to Saudi Arabia without actually invading them and, they succeeded in that, even with the problems they're having.

No. The WTC buildings looked like controlled demolition and not like anything else. The Pennsilvania crash looked unlike any other air crash - debris spread for miles. The plane that hit the Pentagon turned to dust or dissapeared.

Looked because weakened structures don't stay straight and fall over, they collapse. After you address the planning, preparation and execution phase, I will allow you to show me demolition experts who all say it could not come down like that. Not one guy but people who have a reputation to defend and know what they speak of. Let them say it was an obvious demolition and that a plane could not have caused that. I mean, they are leaders in their feilds right? Speaking of planes, The plane at the Pentagon can be seen in photos with parts of turbines and stuff indicative to the type used all over the place. Are you going to now speculate this was brought in by truck unnoticed by anybody and sat there waiting to get crashed into by a cessna, missile, fast corvette or what?

Everything has done that- all of the evidence and including the lack of it suggest the official line is not even close to reality.

Hey, guy I used to know (he's doing time now) found out some guy was doing his wife. So, he arranges to meet him for a drink at his place and has a couple friends present. Idea is to beat the tar out of him with friends there to help if he proved too tough. So, things get a bit out of control and he actually over does it a bit. Thinking he's killed him, he panics, gets his buddies to swear silence and then takes the body to a dam and throws it over. Well, the guy's lungs were filled with water so now he's doing time for murder. Anyhow,the conspiracy lasted about an hour or so before one of them went to the cops. So much for coverups with three. Try it with thousands.

Stop with the hard evidence. The stuff was hit at six hundred miles an hour with an ensuing fire. Just for once, one time only, could one conspiracy theorist come up with a plausible scenario on how the planning, execution and subsequent coverup was carried out. Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzze. Just for once, stop with the overload of this and that and that is possible and whatever so it must mean coverup. Be a fiction writer for a few minutes and bring on your best scenario on how that amount of people to carry out four simultanious coverups could get together, plan, prepare execute and then, cover it all up for three stiniing years without one of them cracking. Not one witness, not one conspiracy theorist saw a thing, not one.

And, to top it all off, not one Democrat has gone after this. It is a sure route to election yet not one has ridden it. So, what's really up with you guys? You got the skinny or is this just your mental pornography for politics going throught your head?

[geoffrey]

The fact that the buildings fell in 8.4 seconds shows that they were in freefall and therefore not smashing through concrete and steel beams on the way down.

An application of grade 10 physics can show that it would have taken at least 9.4 seconds for the buildings to fall according to the pancake theory. If you include the effects of bending steel and pulverizing concrete then it would have taken much longer.

Furthermore the official explanation of the collapse violates the second law of thermodynamics which essentially states this: Buildings that fail due to an asymmetrical event do not collapse neatly into small pieces that can be loaded onto a flatbed truck and illegally whisked away to China for recycling before anyone can do a serious investigation.

The collapse of a building goes beyond grade 10 physics my friend.

That is quite the second law of thermodynamics. Who was your physics teacher?

[Riverwind]

The fact that the buildings fell in 8.4 seconds shows that they were in freefall and therefore not smashing through concrete and steel beams on the way down.

There are two theories for the collapse that are equally credible:

1) The planes slashed through the core of towers allowing flames to get into the elevator shafts and spread through the building. These fires generated enough heat to weaken the steel supports and cause the collapse. Normal fires would not have been able to get into the elevator shafts.

2) There were thermite explosives attached to the steel supports in the core and they were detonated.

Both theories explain the free fall and the complete collapse of the steel supports. The original pancake theory could not explain the near free fall of the towers.

Whether 1) is true or not depends on whether the fires in the elevators shafts got hot enough to weaken the steel. I feel that part will be impossible to prove one way or the other based on my reading of the science provided by the conspirasy theorists.

[KrustyKidd]

There were thermite explosives attached to the steel supports in the core and they were detonated.

How did they get there? How long were they in place? How many guys did it take to rig that? Comon, back osme of this up so we can throw some numbers of how many people may be involved in the four events of that day.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

could one conspiracy theorist come up with a plausible scenario on how the planning, execution and subsequent coverup was carried out. Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzze. Just for once, stop with the overload of this and that and that is possible and whatever so it must mean coverup. Be a fiction writer for a few minutes and bring on your best scenario on how that amount of people to carry out four simultanious coverups could get together, plan, prepare execute and then, cover it all up for three stiniing years without one of them cracking.

I do not believe in the 'grand conspiracy' that the US was behind it, nor do I believe the twin towers were 'imploded'. However, I like the idea of the fiction writer bit, so here goes...

If the US had found out about the specifics of the attack, perhaps six months prior, minimal effort and personnel would have been required. Even President Bush needn't have known. Let's say, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Goss knew, and had some ten CIA agents and/or the Mossad involved (evidently the Mossad, though adamant that they do not spy in the US, had a 'proprietary' office in one of the WTC buildings). Demolition charges could have been placed at their leisure over the six months, at night, under the guise of 'general maintenance'.

As to the hijackings, the terrorists had a couple of strokes of 'good luck', which to some might appear suspicious. The planes were at about 50% capacity, far less than normal, lessening the risk of a 'rebellion' on the plane (as happened on the Penn. crashed flight). Also, security was lax, with more than one of the terrorists setting off the security alarms at the airport, and one getting waved through without reconciliation of what triggered the alarm. (according to the (/11 Commision report)

The Mossad would do anything that they felt would benefit Israel, except kill an Israeli. The stakes here are incredibly high, with 9/11 being the excuse the US needed (and the one the Israelis wanted) to start a war with the Islamic world while making it look like they were 'the good and righteous' under attack from evil.

One wacky thing I recently heard was that Zach Moussai (sp?) has testified that he and the would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were to hijack a fifth plane and were to target the white house. I find this a bit incredible, or should I say, uncredible.

[Michael Hardner]

So the US intelligence arm finds out there's a plot against the WTC buildings, and instead of trying to stop it they plant explosives in the walls of the buildings ?

And why would they do that ?

To make the attack worse ?

That just makes no sense at all. No one could have predicted beforehand how many people would have been killed, much less the political and social impact.

[KrustyKidd]

As to the hijackings, the terrorists had a couple of strokes of 'good luck', which to some might appear suspicious.

Not luck, just great planning. So, the planes had to be the longest possible distance without requiring leaving the US as to negate passports.

The time of year was taken into account for the storms and weather and such, if they had done this during summer, there would havebeen too many passengers, in winter, bad weather in any of the airports would have increased the chance of one or all of the flights to be delayed. It was key to the plan to have them hijacked within minutes of each other so as not to tip their hand.

The number of passengers was taken into great consideration. To few and they would stand out and increase the likelyhood of more stringent security checks. Too many and they would not be able to control.

The time of day was importent as they wished to maximize the damage at the targets. Too early and nobody there. TOo late and they would be faced with too many passengers.

I do not believe in the 'grand conspiracy' that the US was behind it, nor do I believe the twin towers were 'imploded'. However, I like the idea of the fiction writer bit, so here goes...

Not bad at all Lonius. However, a couple of problems;

Israeli involvement in order to get the US to attack a Muslim country.

Sounds good on paper but, is the Muslim world aflame in Israel's uinterest? Also, in order to help their country they also have to do risk asessment. What if their plot were discovered, expecially after the event? It would mean the US would turn direction on their war on terror and at least cut ties with Israel if not actually attack them. Hardly worth the risk.

Second, if to maximize damage was the key, why control the explosion? I mean, if that were the case you would be better off having the towers fall straight over and kill even more people?

Third. Read some stuff detailing the planning and execution of the attack in Afganistan. It was pretty much a start from scratch affair and, nobody.... I mean nobody would ever by choice pick that place to begin a campaign to work on the Muslim world. There is probably no more inaccesable area on the planet than Afganistan and to support troops there is a nightmare. Lacking quality air targets you have to use frindly forces and, those forces had not been in contact with their CIA handlers since the Soviet years. So, if this could be true, then Rumsfeld did not prepare for the aftermath whatsoever and that, is not classic Rummy. The man is a fanatic on planning and to leave out the aftermath of this 'plot' is impossible for him.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

So the US intelligence arm finds out there's a plot against the WTC buildings, and instead of trying to stop it they plant explosives in the walls of the buildings ?

And why would they do that ?

To make the attack worse ?

Yes, there was a tremendous psychological impact associated with the entire 'visual' of the attack. The buildings were pretty much screwed from the initial jet impact, repair would have been formidable, if not impossible. Why not get maximum mileage from it?

That just makes no sense at all. No one could have predicted beforehand how many people would have been killed, much less the political and social impact.

The number of deaths in this scenario would have been irrelevant. The social and political impact was predictable, that would have been the point. Outrage, cries for revenge, and pretty much carte blanche for the US military industrial complex to get rolling.

Again, bear in mind, the scenario I put forth is pure fiction.

[GostHacked]

If I knew all the answeres I would not be asking all the questions and hypothisizing. Process of elimination here for me.

Micheal Hardner. (one that has not right out ridiculed my ideas)

I was meddling over another theory in my head. If there were no bombs in the building, and I personally don't think the plane impact plus fire was enough to bring them down, what about bombs on the planes themselves? This could be planted alot easier than wiring the whole WTC complex.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

Not luck, just great planning. So, the planes had to be the longest possible distance without requiring leaving the US as to negate passports.

Indeed, they picked trans-continental domestic flights to have the maximum fuel load.

The number of passengers was taken into great consideration. To few and they would stand out and increase the likelyhood of more stringent security checks. Too many and they would not be able to control.

I don't believe that the passenger load was something they could influence. I think the date (9/11) was a bigger factor than the season, but I could be wrong.

However, a couple of problems;

Israeli involvement in order to get the US to attack a Muslim country.

Sounds good on paper but, is the Muslim world aflame in Israel's uinterest?

Absolutely, the Muslim world aflame would be in Israel's interests, especially if the anger is directed elsewhere, either internally or against the US. The Mossad is the most unscrupulous organization in the world, I do not think that anything is 'immoral' to them if they think Israel would benefit.

Second, if to maximize damage was the key, why control the explosion? I mean, if that were the case you would be better off having the towers fall straight over and kill even more people?

Again, in this fictional account, there was no guarantee that the buildings would fall. In fact, most of the engineering references say that it is possible that the planes caused the collapse, but none of them ay it would have been likely. The one that collapsed crooked, for example, should have had the top sheared off and the rest should have remained, as there would have been no uniform downward pressure to collapse the rest of the building. WTC 7 falling was highly suspicious.

Third. Read some stuff detailing the planning and execution of the attack in Afganistan.

I read "Bush At War", by Bob Woodward, and I believe him to be slightly biased in favour of the gov't. However, he did indicate thatWolfowitz was 'gung-ho' on attacking Iraq immediately, but Afghanistan was the choice of Bush. In the book, "Future:Tense", by Gwynne Dyer, it is more evident that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others started planning to attack Iraq Sept. 12/01. So, the 'end game' wasn't Afghanistan, though they may have felt it a neccesity to go there first. No question that the Taliban was the 'state sponsor' of the terrorism. The actual 'end game' of Rummy was to militarily invade the Middle East, with the 'domino theory' of democratization (and US hegemony) by the sword.

I do not wholly support all of this theory, but I don't think it as impossible, either.

[geoffrey]

That wasn't my quote by the way.

Anyways, the logistics of rigging a massive tower to explode without any of the demolitions people spilling the beans (imagine how much your book would make) or being seen is unimaginable. So we'll go with the first explaination.

[Riverwind]

Anyways, the logistics of rigging a massive tower to explode without any of the demolitions people spilling the beans (imagine how much your book would make) or being seen is unimaginable.

So they used military people with top secret clearance and a history of obeying orders without question.

[KrustyKidd]

If there were no bombs in the building, and I personally don't think the plane impact plus fire was enough to bring them down, what about bombs on the planes themselves? This could be planted alot easier than wiring the whole WTC complex.

The whole operation hinged on surprise. Low tech it also had an inherent problem of coordination with a lot of variables such as weather, security, people's reaction and such. The entire operation more than likely took a hundred peole to pull off as it is counting the support personell. Adding bombs would have added another twenty to fifty people to the mix, and, all it would have taken would have been an alert security guard and the whole show they had prepared a year (or years) for would have gone down the tubes.

What if the aircraft being used had to be switched at the last moment due to a broken hydraulic line? What if the bomb was discovered? End of plan, end of operation and more than likely, all flights cancelled that day and the arrest of the operatives. It wasn't worth the hassle or risk.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't believe that the passenger load was something they could influence. I think the date (9/11) was a bigger factor than the season, but I could be wrong.

No. Time of day was importent. To late and you are dealing with a full plane. Too early and you are on the flight by yourself with four other Middle Eastern guys. The first flight of the day starts checking in around five am. Too early for most seasoned travellers to bother with. Time of year very importent for weather considerations. If one of the planes could not go or was delayed only half an hour, it would jeapardize the mission.

Absolutely, the Muslim world aflame would be in Israel's interests, especially if the anger is directed elsewhere, either internally or against the US.

The Middle East fragmented and aflame is in nobodies interest save those who have nothing to lose but everythng to gain. It would not be in Israel's interest to have the US find out they had engineered or played a part in 911. It would spell the end of all American support and possibly trigger military action.

[Michael Hardner]

thelonius:

Yes, there was a tremendous psychological impact associated with the entire 'visual' of the attack. The buildings were pretty much screwed from the initial jet impact, repair would have been formidable, if not impossible. Why not get maximum mileage from it?

I'm not sure if this scenario presupposes the hijacking was also part of this plan or not.

Either way, the additional psychological impact would be marginal.

The number of deaths in this scenario would have been irrelevant. The social and political impact was predictable, that would have been the point. Outrage, cries for revenge, and pretty much carte blanche for the US military industrial complex to get rolling.

In hindsight, that seems obvious but beforehand any reasonable plan would have to take account that the population would blame the current administration, the damage done to public faith in the government - securitywise and otherwise - the enormous financial impact to the nation in general, even the possibility of civil unrest.

Again, bear in mind, the scenario I put forth is pure fiction.

Well, I guess it's good fiction then.

gosthacked:

If I knew all the answeres I would not be asking all the questions and hypothisizing. Process of elimination here for me.

Frankly, I think the allure of mystery has caused you to ignore the obvious explanation.

I was meddling over another theory in my head. If there were no bombs in the building, and I personally don't think the plane impact plus fire was enough to bring them down, what about bombs on the planes themselves? This could be planted alot easier than wiring the whole WTC complex.

The terrorists wouldn't have been able to do it. So if you mean this was part of the aforementioned conspiracy, again I ask - how much extra risk would the mission have to take in order for their marginal gain in psychological impact ?

riverwind:

So they used military people with top secret clearance and a history of obeying orders without question.

They would have had to have conspiracy from civillians.

There should be some record that some other maintenance company did major work on the WTC at some point in the last year. This company would probably have been a phantom entity. If not, then you have to add more complexity, more exposure to risk.

This maintence company would probably have to have been pre-approved by WTC management. They would probably have to shut down offices they were working on, as these types of places are active 24 hours a day.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner

Either way, the additional psychological impact would be marginal.

Ok, this part isn't fiction...The psychological impact was the whole point of the exercise. It was not to kill the greatest number of people, for there would have been a myriad of other ways to kill more than 3-4000 people. Osama claimed that he targeted the towers because they were a symbol of wealth (read: greed) and power in the US, as was the Pentagon and presumably the White House.

Krusty, this is why the hijackers wanted as few people as possible on the planes. True, a short line-up at security probably means more and closer scrutiny than if there is a muttering line-up of disgruntled passengers, but the deaths of the passengers was incidental to the operation. It wasn't about maximizing the killing, it was about the dramatic effect, the horror (or 'terror') of such an attack, not the numbers.

I would suspect that 8:00-9:00 am, on a Tuesday morning, would have the least amount of passengers, (mostly business travellers, and the smallest percentage of holiday/family-visit travellers) and a bleary-eyed, possibly hung-over airport staff.

The Middle East fragmented and aflame is in nobodies interest save those who have nothing to lose but everythng to gain. It would not be in Israel's interest to have the US find out they had engineered or played a part in 911. It would spell the end of all American support and possibly trigger military action.

Back to the fiction bit, the Mossad may have been the ones to discover the information in the 6 months prior to the attack, and made a bargain with the US. They could have said, "We'll give you information about an upcoming terrorist attack, an incredibly dramatic one, and you could use it as a legitimate excuse to invade the ME, (getting Iraq, and most of the Muslims hostile to Israel, off Israel's back...after all, there was a mass exodus of would be suicide bombers that left Palestine, Syria and Jordan to Iraq instead of Israel) and all you have to do is let it happen". Edited April 3, 2006 by theloniusfleabag

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, this part isn't fiction...The psychological impact was the whole point of the exercise. It was not to kill the greatest number of people, for there would have been a myriad of other ways to kill more than 3-4000 people. Osama claimed that he targeted the towers because they were a symbol of wealth (read: greed) and power in the US, as was the Pentagon and presumably the White House.

So the psychological impact is in having the planes hit AND the towers falling down.

Either event happening on its own wouldn't have been damaging enough ?

And in order to make both events happen they had two have separate attacks - the plane hijackings, and a second secret operation to bring down the towers.

It seems that such a plan would make things a lot more complicated, and more risky for not much more gain.

[GostHacked]

Frankly, I think the allure of mystery has caused you to ignore the obvious explanation.

The allure of mystery has caused me to rethink and question the 'official' explanation. Simple as that.

[Riverwind]

And in order to make both events happen they had two have separate attacks - the plane hijackings, and a second secret operation to bring down the towers.

Allowing the planes to hit the towers would be risky because it is possible the towers would collapse sideways and do much more damage. Blowing up the towers after the planes hit allowed the planners to have better control over the eventual outcome and ensure maximum psychological effect.

[geoffrey]

Anyways, the logistics of rigging a massive tower to explode without any of the demolitions people spilling the beans (imagine how much your book would make) or being seen is unimaginable.

So they used military people with top secret clearance and a history of obeying orders without question.

So the US military is in on this? I thought it was a money grab? Why why why?

Is there a real conspiracy? Maybe. I don't think the towers being rigged by military commandos to collapse is feasible though.

[geoffrey]

And in order to make both events happen they had two have separate attacks - the plane hijackings, and a second secret operation to bring down the towers.

Allowing the planes to hit the towers would be risky because it is possible the towers would collapse sideways and do much more damage. Blowing up the towers after the planes hit allowed the planners to have better control over the eventual outcome and ensure maximum psychological effect.

Towers can't collapse sideways, you'd have to hit it with thousands of times the force of those planes. The power needed to knock a tower off its foundation and have it fall over isn't happening. Towers only collapse.

[GostHacked]

And in order to make both events happen they had two have separate attacks - the plane hijackings, and a second secret operation to bring down the towers.

Allowing the planes to hit the towers would be risky because it is possible the towers would collapse sideways and do much more damage. Blowing up the towers after the planes hit allowed the planners to have better control over the eventual outcome and ensure maximum psychological effect.

Towers can't collapse sideways, you'd have to hit it with thousands of times the force of those planes. The power needed to knock a tower off its foundation and have it fall over isn't happening. Towers only collapse.

With earthquakes, buildings topple over. Sideways.

[Riverwind]

Towers can't collapse sideways, you'd have to hit it with thousands of times the force of those planes. The power needed to knock a tower off its foundation and have it fall over isn't happening. Towers only collapse.

Then why are there demolition firms that specialize in making sure buildings fall straight down? It is not a simple as it sounds.