911: Professional experts says it was staged

[Scott G]

Scott, that's one big cop-out of a post.

No, but what you do is. I've investigated 9/11 for years. I bet you haven't even seen Zeitgeist. Why don't you follow your own advice? If you did, you'd have no need for alternative theory supporters to spoon feed you information while they do all the hard work.

[TK0001]

How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even formulate a single theory that you actually believe in?

Scott, what happened on 9/11?

[Q24]

How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even formulate a single theory that you actually believe in?

Scott, what happened on 9/11?

If you want to pick one aspect of the attack I’ll provide a complete theory.

[booNyzarC]

If you want to pick one aspect of the attack I’ll provide a complete theory.

WTC 1 and 2.

[Wandering]

TK & others, here are a few excerpts from a book I've posted in some of the older threads. Personally I believe the reason for collapse was about Insurance and building new towers. The complexities of an official operation to demolish those towers would have been many.

By collapsing the towers under the guise of a terrorist attack, they have been able to claim insurance, give the local economy a tourism boost, justify a war and they'll end up with a spanking new group of buildings. Instead of perhaps a demolition process which would have required the buildings to empty, and may have taken years.

I personally experienced this on a smaller, local scale when a local market burned down. The owners had for years been attempting to get council planning to subdivide their land for apartments to be built on it. They were always refused. So they sold the markets to a local businessman. After he took ownership, all the shop owners in the market received flyers reminding them to get fire insurance. 6 months later the entire place burnt down. The new owner was friends with members of the council. He got it rezoned and although the fire was deemed suspicious, no evidence ever came to light. He collected his Insurance of course. Now, brand new apartments stand on the spot.

Here are some brief extracts from Eric Darton's book "Divided We Stand". Written in 1999 about the increasingly decrepid WTC 1&2

Quote:

From Page 190:

Outside, tucked nearly against the rear wall of the hotel, directly

over the spot where the bomb detonated, stands the memorial for the

victims. But there are days when the plaza winds blow garbage into its

concentric marble rings faster than the maintenance crews can clean

them out, and some visitors apparently do not realize-despite the in-

scription in English and Spanish around its rim recording the names of

the seven fatalities-that the memorial is not a Dumpster.

DETAILS: THE PHYSICAL PLANT

Pacing out the periphery of the trade towers in the late 1990s, one nav-

igated a cracked badlands of sidewalk crudely patched with mismatch-

ing cement. The weathered, gray (originally white) Italian marble

From Page 191:

paving on the plaza was a spiderweb of cracks, a condition that under-

mined the addition of benches and flowerbeds and the tinkling medley

of new-age harmonics emanating from a score of tiny speakers mounted

beneath Yamasaki's arcades. Construction equipment and barricades

around the site appeared to have been deployed and then abandoned

by a retreating army.

And up in the towers, where asbestos removal was still under way,

a host of details pointed toward a rift opening up within the trade cen-

ter itself. In 1985, when New York State moved most of its offices out,

Dean Witter consolidated its operations in twenty-four floors of Tower

2 under a twenty-year lease. Visiting the brokerage and investment

firm's offices and cafeterias, one invariably found them spotlessly

maintained. But on adjacent floors, particularly those with multiple

tenants, the paint was dingy, the carpets were stained, fixtures re-

mained broken, and burned-out fluorescent lights went unreplaced, as

did discolored ceiling tiles. And the listing of a company on the direc-

tory did not reliably indicate that a company was still there.

And who indeed was there, inhabiting the self-proclaimed heart of

world trade? In 1966, as the PA was bulldozing Radio Row, the City

Planning Commission reported that "the prime objective of the WTC is

to simplify and expand international trade by centralizing and consoli-

dating within the Center essential world trade services and activi-

ties.... The Center will contain only government agencies and private

firms which play a part in international marketing and in the adminis-

trative processing of world trade. " Yet according to its own

1993 occupancy survey, the Port Authority found that trade service and

import-export tenants accounted for only 5 percent of its leases.

The Port Authority closed out the 1990s with a stream of press re-

leases announcing the rental of unimaginably huge quantities of trade

center office space to "cutting-edge" firms like Sun Microsystems. Yet

around the complex a million square feet stood empty, and the build-

ings originally intended as great catalyzing chambers of world trade

were, by degrees, transforming into a kind of disjunctive real estate

layer-cake. One story above the carpeted, wood-paneled offices of a

Japanese securities firm, a group of artists filled bare walls with boldly

colored images and hung sculptures from the exposed ceiling girders of

a vast echoing cavern. As part of a Lower Manhattan Cultural Council

program that turned some of the vacant space in the towers over to

artists rent-free, 40,000 square feet of concrete floor lay paint-

spattered and strewn with the raw materials of a creative urge that has

never been easily reconciled with the imperatives of a bottom line.

From Page 195:

But it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a gener-

ation of more recent, cybernetically "smart" buildings with higher ceil-

ings and greater built-in electrical capacity. To maintain the trade

center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the PA would

have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic

communications, and cooling systems. Then came the bombing and,

according to Charles Maikish, former director of the PA's World Trade

Center Department, a repair bill of $700 million and hundreds of mil-

lions in lost revenues. The Port Authority, however, possessed capaci-

ties far beyond those of a commercial landlord, among them a $2.6

billion annual budget and the ability to generate capital through bonds,

tolls, fares, and airport disembarkation tariffs. The PA had the where-

withal in 1993 to rebuild the trade center and perform the necessary

renovations-but then came another assault, one far more devastating

to its institutional integrity.

From Page 204:

Ever since Nelson Rockefeller made the WTC viable by pouring

20,000 state office workers into the entirety of Tower 2, New York State

had maintained a continuous presence there. In January 1996, Gover-

nor Pataki announced that he was moving the trade center's last state

tenant, the governor's office itself, to cheaper, more convenient space

in midtown.

ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE

The February 1993 blast in the basement of the World Trade Center

killed 6 people, injured 1,000 others, displaced 50,000 workers, and

threw 900 Vista Hotel and Windows on the World employees out of

work, but it also provided a modest boost for the regional economy.

This, at any rate, was the conclusion the Pout Authority came to in an

April 1993 report released six weeks after the bombing.

Admitting that its analysis did not account for "intangible

losses"-such as the 2,300 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder

diagnosed by the PA's chief psychologist-the agency predicted that

the jobs and economic activity generated by the explosion would re-

sult in a net gain of $200 million. Wage losses from the closing of

trade center facilities would be offset by the earnings of thousands of

workers undertaking what the PA termed a "fast-track" reconstruc-

tion effort.

For the agency, this silver lining was due in part to the ease with

which the 350 bombed-out trade center tenants could be moved into

abundant vacant office space nearby. Breathing an almost palpable

sigh of relief, then-PA chair Richard Leone noted that relocating ten-

ants would have been far more protracted and expensive had the ex-

plosion occurred in the boom year of 1985.

Source : http://www.padrak.com/dividedwestand/

I highlighted a few discussion points in the article which I believe have a strong bearing on the case for the collapse being pre-meditated.

A common cry by the sceptics is that there was not enough time to plant bombs/thermite/whatever and no one was observed doing it. In my opinion, the "artists" that occupied the empty areas of WTC and hung sculptures on 'exposed ceiling girders' would have had the time, ability and access to do so.

As the article states, the building was past it's prime and finding it difficult to compete with newer, more technologically advanced buildings.

Not only are there nice new WTC towers, there is also a huge boost provided to the local economy. Does a 'fast tracked' reconstruction effort sound like anything that's happening now?

Anyway, I hope you find the above points invigorate your thoughts on the subject.

*Edit - Grammar phail.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Wandering

[Q24]

WTC 1 and 2.

Which area…

How the plan came to be?

The demolition setup?

The plane element?

Edited October 1, 2011 by Q24

[TK0001]

TK & others, here are a few excerpts from a book I've posted in some of the older threads. Personally I believe the reason for collapse was about Insurance and building new towers.

Then who benefited from the largest insurance scam in history? Who perpetrated it? Who was the mastermind?

ETA: hold that though. I'll give it a closer look when I have some time.

Edited October 1, 2011 by TK0001

[booNyzarC]

Which area…

How the plan came to be?

The demolition setup?

The plane element?

The demolition setup and plane element would be a good start.

[Wandering]

Then who benefited from the largest insurance scam in history? Who perpetrated it? Who was the mastermind?

ETA: hold that though. I'll give it a closer look when I have some time.

Larry Silverstein is the public face of the company that owned the buildings at the time of the collapse and was the man collecting the insurance. I doubt it was orchestrated by any one person though. It would have been a decision at a high level, perhaps a boardroom meeting type situation. 'vote to destroy the towers! all for say aye!' etc..

This is where I am in 2 minds, I can see the 'elite' organizing this entire thing without bringing the Government into it. They certainly have the finances to do it. I can then see the Government using what happened, regardless of the amount of knowledge they have about it as a tool to start a war.

On the other hand, it could have been a collaboration between multiple parties, each party getting what they wanted out of it.

I hope you will.

[TK0001]

Larry Silverstein is the public face of the company that owned the buildings at the time of the collapse and was the man collecting the insurance. I doubt it was orchestrated by any one person though. It would have been a decision at a high level, perhaps a boardroom meeting type situation. 'vote to destroy the towers! all for say aye!' etc..

This is where I am in 2 minds, I can see the 'elite' organizing this entire thing without bringing the Government into it. They certainly have the finances to do it. I can then see the Government using what happened, regardless of the amount of knowledge they have about it as a tool to start a war.

On the other hand, it could have been a collaboration between multiple parties, each party getting what they wanted out of it.

I hope you will.

I will, I promise. I have a busy Saturday and can only pop in once in awhile.

Meantime, think about this in terms of mass murder, not just collecting insurance money. Would a board room realistically agree to slaughter 3,000 people to collect insurance money?

Also, I know Silverstein lost a significant amount of money when he chose to keep the land the WTC was on, but I don't have the time to look it up to provide a link at the moment.

[Wandering]

Meantime, think about this in terms of mass murder, not just collecting insurance money. Would a board room realistically agree to slaughter 3,000 people to collect insurance money?

More have been killed for less throughout history.

It's not the insurance money per se, It's the new towers. The insurance paying for it is just a bonus.

Also, I know Silverstein lost a significant amount of money when he chose to keep the land the WTC was on, but I don't have the time to look it up to provide a link at the moment

I'd be interested in reading that if you can find it.

[Scott G]

Transferred from another thread...

There were no explosives planted before the impacts either,

A statement like should have proof to be believed. I haven't seen you present any.

and the collapse of the buildings initiated at the points where they were struck by aircraft.

I agree that the Twin Towers started falling around the points where the aircraft struck, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft or the fires they started were the cause of those collapses.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

Transferred from another thread...

A statement like should have proof to be believed. I haven't seen you present any. Architec

It is all very simple. No person in their right mind would have taken thousands of pounds of explosives all the way up to the EXACT locations of the aircraft impacts even before the impacts when they could have done so at ground level, which did happen in 1993 and yet, the affected WTC building remained standing despite a van full of explosives.

I agree that the Twin Towers started falling around the points where the aircraft struck, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft or the fires they started were the cause of those collapses.

When the aircraft struck the buildings, damage was done to the support stuctures and it was just a matter of time before the remaining heat-soaked support structures, which were supporting additional weight left by damaged support structures, and additional weight for which they were not designed to support, would eventually fail. The fire didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, just hot enough to soften the remaining support beams to failure and that is what happened.

[Scott G]

There were no explosives planted before the impacts either, and the collapse of the buildings initiated at the points where they were struck by aircraft.

A statement like [that] should have proof to be believed. I haven't seen you present any.

It is all very simple. No person in their right mind would have taken thousands of pounds of explosives all the way up to the EXACT locations of the aircraft impacts even before the impacts when they could have done so at ground level, which did happen in 1993 and yet, the affected WTC building remained standing despite a van full of explosives.

You're assuming that the people behind 9/11 didn't care if it were discovered that the buildings were brought down by explosives, not by planes. If, on the other hand, we assume that they didn't want it to be easily discovered that the planes were just diversions, then they would have had to have initiated the collapse around the area where the planes hit.

I agree that the Twin Towers started falling around the points where the aircraft struck, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft or the fires they started were the cause of those collapses.

When the aircraft struck the buildings, damage was done to the support stuctures and it was just a matter of time before the remaining heat-soaked support structures, which were supporting additional weight left by damaged support structures, and additional weight for which they were not designed to support, would eventually fail. The fire didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, just hot enough to soften the remaining support beams to failure and that is what happened.

That's more or less the gist of the official story. Have you read Steven Jones paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC buildings collapse?"? It details the flaws in the official story's analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

[skyeagle409]

You're assuming that the people behind 9/11 didn't care if it were discovered that the buildings were brought down by explosives, not by planes. If, on the other hand, we assume that they didn't want it to be easily discovered that the planes were just diversions, then they would have had to have initiated the collapse around the area where the planes hit.

That doesn't fly, because there were no chemical explosions before, nor after the aircraft impacts.

[skyeagle409]

That's more or less the gist of the official story. Have you read Steven Jones paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC buildings collapse?"? It details the flaws in the official story's analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

The reports that I have supplied, refutes skeptic's claims, and once again, no chemical explosions evident.

Edited October 2, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

No person in their right mind

Well there you go Skyeagle, are we talking about people who think like the rest of us?

When the aircraft struck the buildings, damage was done to the support stuctures and it was just a matter of time before the remaining heat-soaked support structures, which were supporting additional weight left by damaged support structures, and additional weight for which they were not designed to support, would eventually fail. The fire didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, just hot enough to soften the remaining support beams to failure and that is what happened.

Neatly, in It's own footprint, no chunks falling off, no leaning, not to one side, just symmetrical freefall.

[Little Fish]

The fire didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel

the fact is - the fires were hot enough to melt steel. this has been proven by different lines of empirical observation confirmed by different groups of researchers.

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles"

- RJ Lee group

just hot enough to soften the remaining support beams to failure and that is what happened

if fire alone was the cause of collapse then the towers would have collapsed at the point of steel "softening" and there would be no molten iron. how do you explain the molten iron which has a melting temperature above 1500C?

[Q24]

The demolition setup and plane element would be a good start.

I can only accept your first answer, demolition setup.

There would be three elements - acquisition, access and setup.

1. Acquisition
   Non-theory: In 1999 Naval Sea Systems Command were undertaking research and development of various nano/super-thermite powders. It is reported, “At that time, this was the only reliable source of aluminium nanopowders in the United States.”
   Theory: Some of the above nanothermite stocks were purchased by an Israeli research centre, the deal agreed in interests of defense co-operation. The centre was a subsidiary of the Mossad and though the exchange took place, the material never left the United States.
   Note, no one in Naval Sea Systems Command is aware of the operation but are acting in a lawful capacity. The end result is nanothermite powders present in the United States (no need to traverse import authorities) and in custody of the Mossad.
   
2. Access
   Non-theory: On 9/11, five Israeli men were detained after public reports they were seen to celebrate the tower collapses. The van the men were driving was searched and a sniffer dog reacted as if detecting explosives, though none were found present. After failed lie detector tests and FBI suspicion the men were intelligence agents (with strong indication the Urban Moving Systems company they worked for was a front for an Israeli operation), the men were deported after high level government negotiations.
   Theory: The five Israeli men were part of the Mossad subsidiary that acquired the nanothermite. This and other explosives had been transported in their van as an apparently legitimate order/delivery to Turner Construction Company (more on them in a moment), who were based in the twin towers. Access could have been aided by a single insider who had infiltrated security so as to avoid random vehicle searches.
   
3. Setup
   Non-theory: In 1999, Tom Leppert (former White House Fellow and later recipient of the Torch of Conscience award from the American Jewish Congress) became CEO of Turner Construction Company. In the same year, Turner Construction were purchased in a merger deal with Hochtief AG of Germany. Turner Construction had carried out work for Naval Sea Systems Command in 1997, had been involved in demolition works in 2000, by the time of 9/11 rented offices in both of the twin towers and were long-time contractors for works in those buildings, including refurbishment of fireproofing (which had been undertaken in both impact zones) and the Ground Zero clean-up.
   Theory: Tom Leppert was involved in the operation having become acquainted with Cheney et al during his time in the White House. He agreed the Hochtief AG takeover and used the subsequent merger and reorganisation to incorporate a new department within Turner Construction; in fact, a front for our Mossad subsidiary. It was this department which received the order of nanothermite (of course under guise of legitimate construction materials for testing). The ongoing contract for refurbishment of the twin tower fireproofing and steelwork renovation was used as cover for placing of the demolition materials within the buildings.
   

Note above that each step of the process has an apparently innocent cover - there was no sneaking around, no Men In Black, no invisible ninjas, no time machines (all of which I have heard official story adherents wildly suggest). To any onlooker, the activities were all quite legitimate. Also note this part of the operation is dominated by foreign intelligence with only one U.S. Neocon associate directly involved.

And remember it’s a theory. There are areas which could be expanded on, numerous different routes that could have been taken altogether and other companies/individuals which could be suggested. This is just one theory I have put forward to show the operation was possible with minimum complication.

Unfortunately none of it is provable without a new investigation as transactions of Naval Sea Systems Command will be classified, Urban Moving Systems fled the United States after 9/11, records of Turner Construction were destroyed in the tower collaspes and the Mossad generally don’t talk.

Any questions?

[Little Fish]

turner construction had an office in the basement of the north tower, this is where William Rodriquez and a dozen others said that there was an explosion prior to the first plane hit. destruction of the operation and/or technicians involved in the setup?

http://www.bdcnetwork.com/terror-devastates-aec-firms

Edited October 2, 2011 by Little Fish

[booNyzarC]

--

Any questions?

Nope. How about the plane element now?

[Little Fish]

Nope. How about the plane element now?

electronic anti-hijack system captures the planes and guides them on to their pre programmed targets.

[booNyzarC]

electronic anti-hijack system captures the planes and guides them on to their pre programmed targets.

Thanks. I'd like Q24's theory.

[Scott G]

I can only accept your first answer, demolition setup.

...Any questions?

No. I must admit I'm impressed. I've never had such a succinct explanation as to how it could be done.

[Scott G]

Thanks. I'd like Q24's theory.

So would I, but I liked Little Fish's response too; most of all, the notion that the planes used to crash into the buildings were remote controlled. I also think that the following article has some really good information on what may have happened to the planes and the passengers:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?