Issues with 9-11

[Michael Hardner]

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.

That's even more bizarre than I thought.

So... the planes didn't hit the towers ?

They were afraid of causing much more damage, so they brought the towers straight down ?

Neither of those things make any sense.

How was the plane hit staged when so many people saw it and videotaped it ?

Why were they afraid of topping the towers to cause more damage when they risked killing tens of thousands ?

[Riverwind]

Allowing the planes to hit the towers would be risky because...

How was the plane hit staged when so many people saw it and videotaped it ?

Allowing the planes to hit the towers without any backup plan would be risky because...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

How was the plane hit staged when so many people saw it and videotaped it ?

Why were they afraid of topping the towers to cause more damage when they risked killing tens of thousands ?

Again, bear in mind, this is 'the poetic license of liturgy'...the conspiracy theory I put forward includes the fact that the US gov't (or some few in it, perhaps a handful) knew beforehand, the exact nature of the coming attack. Demolition charges could then have been rigged first. The only way to guarantee that thetowers would fall would be to compromise all of the support beams, not just 'some one one side to tip it over', but a symmetrical collapse would be more of a sure thing than anything else. If it was rigged, it would have been rigged properly, and that means straight down.

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

The second event (the collapse) could not have happened without the first event. The buildings falling without clear, dramatic visual attack would have left doubt as to whom was responsible. Even a letter claiming responsibility broadcast on al-Jazeera wouldn't have had the same effect. And, further, the theory isn't that the US planned or aided the attacks, just that they may have had foreknowledge and rigged the buildings 'just to be sure'.

[Michael Hardner]

The second event (the collapse) could not have happened without the first event. The buildings falling without clear, dramatic visual attack would have left doubt as to whom was responsible. Even a letter claiming responsibility broadcast on al-Jazeera wouldn't have had the same effect. And, further, the theory isn't that the US planned or aided the attacks, just that they may have had foreknowledge and rigged the buildings 'just to be sure'.

But it's easy to imagine the attacks being worse... or not as bad.

So... they had to make an attack that was just right to produce the perfect amount of terror...

The planes had to do more than hit the buildings - the buildings had to fall. But they couldn't fall over... that was too much.

That makes a plan that's already extremely risky and complex several times more risky and complex. Why ? To achieve that PERFECT amount of terror.

....

That doesn't fly as reality or fiction. It's too contrived - like you're trying to set up act III.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

That makes a plan that's already extremely risky and complex several times more risky and complex

No, keep in mind these 'plans' were mutually exclusive. One doesn't affect the other, (though 2 could not have happened without 1) that is, IF the US knew about the impending attacks, they simply had to not interfere.

Why ?

This is where conspiracy theories get wacky. According to the conspiracy theory I laid out, the main purpose of 'pulling the buildings' was to complete the visual, and the 'terror'. For example, do Hollywood writers expect someone like Jackie Chan or Sly Stallone to go on an action-packed revenge rampage if his best friend, cop-partner/wife merely got wounded by bad guys?

Again, IF the US had foreknowledge, the towers were doomed anyway, and ensuring their destruction at the 'hands of terrorists' would be both the most 'value-able, psy-ops scenario' as well as the most cost efficient way to do it.

[Michael Hardner]

This is where conspiracy theories get wacky. According to the conspiracy theory I laid out, the main purpose of 'pulling the buildings' was to complete the visual, and the 'terror'. For example, do Hollywood writers expect someone like Jackie Chan or Sly Stallone to go on an action-packed revenge rampage if his best friend, cop-partner/wife merely got wounded by bad guys?

Again, IF the US had foreknowledge, the towers were doomed anyway, and ensuring their destruction at the 'hands of terrorists' would be both the most 'value-able, psy-ops scenario' as well as the most cost efficient way to do it.

That is utterly ridiculous.

If you accept the idea that they would allow the attacks to happen, then these conspirators could sit back and do nothing and the terror effect would have been practically the same as if the buildings didn't fall.

They took all the risk and undertook an inconceivable amount of planning just for an extra 'special effect' - the falling buildings - with negligible benefits ? Why didn't they plant a nuclear bomb in the towers and detonate that ?

Oh, right... TOO MUCH TERROR. They had to have just that right amount.

None of it makes any sense, even as fiction.

[geoffrey]

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.

An Earthquake is so much more massively powerful than a plane. Sorry. Not to mention a tower like WTC would NOT have fallen in an Earthquake. The taller the tower, the more power you need to push it over.

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.

They specialize in making nice piles of rubble. You can have a tower COLLAPSE sideways, have the rubble fall a little to the right on your Boss's house kind of deal. But it's still a collapse. You can't have a building just topple like a bowling pin.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

If you accept the idea that they would allow the attacks to happen, then these conspirators could sit back and do nothing and the terror effect would have been practically the same as if the buildings didn't fall.

Yes, you are correct, I won't dispute this. But,

They took all the risk and undertook an inconceivable amount of planning just for an extra 'special effect' - the falling buildings - with negligible benefits ?

risky, yes, a bit, but the planning would have taken hours, possibly minutes, not 'an inconceivable amount'. Given the go-ahead, most operations are formulaic. All that need have happened, was for say, Rumsfeld to turn to the CIA director and say, "The Twin Towers are due to be attacked by suicide Jumbo jets in six month's time, can you get them rigged so that they fall after the attack?" Any CIA director worth a piss in the wind should be able to make this happen, with a minimum of fanfare.

[Michael Hardner]

risky, yes, a bit, but the planning would have taken hours, possibly minutes, not 'an inconceivable amount'. Given the go-ahead, most operations are formulaic. All that need have happened, was for say, Rumsfeld to turn to the CIA director and say, "The Twin Towers are due to be attacked by suicide Jumbo jets in six month's time, can you get them rigged so that they fall after the attack?" Any CIA director worth a piss in the wind should be able to make this happen, with a minimum of fanfare.

I take back the 'inconceivable amount' remark. I overstated it there. But it would take a lot.

And there would be some kind of evidence that they were there. They couldn't just slip a few guys in and plant explosives. Did you know there was a CIA office at the WTC ?

BBC Article

[GostHacked]

risky, yes, a bit, but the planning would have taken hours, possibly minutes, not 'an inconceivable amount'. Given the go-ahead, most operations are formulaic. All that need have happened, was for say, Rumsfeld to turn to the CIA director and say, "The Twin Towers are due to be attacked by suicide Jumbo jets in six month's time, can you get them rigged so that they fall after the attack?" Any CIA director worth a piss in the wind should be able to make this happen, with a minimum of fanfare.

I take back the 'inconceivable amount' remark. I overstated it there. But it would take a lot.

And there would be some kind of evidence that they were there. They couldn't just slip a few guys in and plant explosives. Did you know there was a CIA office at the WTC ?

BBC Article

Other tennants of Building 7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Page 2, Table 5.1 Lists, the FBI, CIA, DOD, IRS, Secret Service, ect. Juliani's emergency bunker is there as well.

Also check out the other thing on BBC there Micheal, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...nants/south.stm

That lists the tenants for WTC 1 and 2. Lots of money flowing through this place. To me it is an obvious target, has been before. But all this , plus the government right next door, they would have know what went on in that building every single moment. Maybe some of those mentioned would know.

[geoffrey]

One floor that had all those agencies grouped together. So what, 5 or 6 CIA analysts working to crack down on foreign tax evasion with the IRS? Boo.

[theloniusfleabag]

An interesting tidbit I found while re-reading the 9/11 Commission Report, (First Edition, and oddly, undated),pg 302. Keep in mind that the collapse of WTC 7 was extremely unususal, or, shall we say, unusuallly perfect.

..."At about 9:57 [am] an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Deparment and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse".

Video of the collapse of 7 WTC can be seen through some previous links posted earlier in the thread, I believe.

[Michael Hardner]

But all this , plus the government right next door, they would have know what went on in that building every single moment.

That's 220 Floors... tens of thousands of people...

They're not god. They didn't have cameras set up to watch everybody in the twin towers.

Some of these ideas that people have might come from popular espionage films and books that overstate the capabilities of intelligence services. Shows like '24' and 'CSI' make spies and investigators into supermen. It's not like that in real life.

[GostHacked]

But all this , plus the government right next door, they would have know what went on in that building every single moment.

That's 220 Floors... tens of thousands of people...

They're not god. They didn't have cameras set up to watch everybody in the twin towers.

Some of these ideas that people have might come from popular espionage films and books that overstate the capabilities of intelligence services. Shows like '24' and 'CSI' make spies and investigators into supermen. It's not like that in real life.

When that much money flows in and out of the country, I would want to monitor it as well.

Also , I don't watch 24, The Sheild, CSI ect. I try to stay away from TV as much as I can.