WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?

[ChloeB]

I think you're missing the main reason for 9-11. The Zionist Jews were scared to death of Saddam Hussain. They wanted him taken out. The Bush bunch wanted to occupy Iraq for the oil and build a pipeline thru Afganistan to the Caspian Sea oil fields. They got together. The Mossad, with a lot of CIA help, planned and carried out the 9-11 caper. The insurance money was gravy, as was the looting of the gold from WTC5. The Pentagon strike was a false flag operation but also destroyed all the records of 2.9 billion missing from the Pentagon. Osama and the terrorists are patsies. The Zionists are the big winners. The U.S. gets blamed for the war. NY wins, too. Billions made on the stock market. IMHO, KennyB

Why were the Zionist Jews so afraid of Saddam? What did they have to gain by taking him out, how are they the big winners?

[KennyB]

ChloeB, Saddam had pretty well recovered from the Gulf War. He knew that the Isralies are behind all the trouble in the Middle East and was determined to destroy them. Using atomic weapons, the Zionists could probably have taken him out themselves but it was easier to have their 'Bully Boys', us, do it for them, especially since the Bush crew was wanting to have a war over there, anyway. In addition, one of their people owned WTC7 and had a lease on WTC1 and WTC2, all heavily insured. Also,WTC5 was a bank and had about 2.5 billion in gold in storage there.IMHO, KennyB

[lookingfortruth]

It's a fact. As I keep telling you, it's happened all throughout the history of the world and continues to happen today. That being the case, it really shouldn't be difficult for people to fathom someone (or a number of people) killing thousands simply to go about their plans for the world, etc.

It's happened to so often throughout history that it be foolish to state otherwise.

no its not a fact. you can't back it up. its not foolish to think otherwise because again, you can't back it up. if your going to claim something is "fact" prepare better next time

[ChloeB]

ChloeB, Saddam had pretty well recovered from the Gulf War. He knew that the Isralies are behind all the trouble in the Middle East and was determined to destroy them. Using atomic weapons, the Zionists could probably have taken him out themselves but it was easier to have their 'Bully Boys', us, do it for them, especially since the Bush crew was wanting to have a war over there, anyway. In addition, one of their people owned WTC7 and had a lease on WTC1 and WTC2, all heavily insured. Also,WTC5 was a bank and had about 2.5 billion in gold in storage there.IMHO, KennyB

You called Osama and the terrorists patsies previously. So do you think they were not involved at all or that a blind eye was turned to the attack that could have been prevented? I'm interested to know who you think was actually flying those planes, orchestrated the plan.

[KennyB]

ChloeB, I think there was a small group of Muslims discussing, in a wistful thinking kind of way, the possibility of hijacking some airliners and flying them into the Twin Towers. They were bugged by the FBI. The Bush adm, (CIA) realized they could set up an operation to do this very thing to have their 'New Pearl Harbor'and blame it on Osama and the Muslims. In the actual operation, there were no Muslims involved. The CIA rigged some planes, probably not the real ones, that they already owned and subsituted them for the real airliners. After takeoff, the CIA controllers took control of the planes and flew them into the towers. They probably released poison gas into the cockpit and passenger compartments. All the people were already dead. IMHO, KennyB

[ChloeB]

ChloeB, I think there was a small group of Muslims discussing, in a wistful thinking kind of way, the possibility of hijacking some airliners and flying them into the Twin Towers. They were bugged by the FBI. The Bush adm, (CIA) realized they could set up an operation to do this very thing to have their 'New Pearl Harbor'and blame it on Osama and the Muslims. In the actual operation, there were no Muslims involved. The CIA rigged some planes, probably not the real ones, that they already owned and subsituted them for the real airliners. After takeoff, the CIA controllers took control of the planes and flew them into the towers. They probably released poison gas into the cockpit and passenger compartments. All the people were already dead. IMHO, KennyB

Okay, I'm just wondering how the phone calls to the family members from passengers describing the men who had taken over the plane would fit in this scenario.

[lookingfortruth]

ChloeB, I think there was a small group of Muslims discussing, in a wistful thinking kind of way, the possibility of hijacking some airliners and flying them into the Twin Towers. They were bugged by the FBI. The Bush adm, (CIA) realized they could set up an operation to do this very thing to have their 'New Pearl Harbor'and blame it on Osama and the Muslims. In the actual operation, there were no Muslims involved. The CIA rigged some planes, probably not the real ones, that they already owned and subsituted them for the real airliners. After takeoff, the CIA controllers took control of the planes and flew them into the towers. They probably released poison gas into the cockpit and passenger compartments. All the people were already dead. IMHO, KennyB

good lord, do I dare ask for a source?

[Left-Field]

no its not a fact. you can't back it up. its not foolish to think otherwise because again, you can't back it up. if your going to claim something is "fact" prepare better next time

No, really, it is a fact. It dates as far back as the Bible and King Herod killing all new born babies when the birth of Jesus was happening.

Maybe you've heard of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Or more recently, Saddam Hussein.

There are many, many other examples throughout history. Genghis Khan comes to mind.

There's been people like this all throughout history.

[KennyB]

ChloeB, The calls had to be faked. Have you ever heard or read those calls? Nobody talks like that. Looking for truth, I suppose you mean proof. You know there's no such thing as proof against the govt. However, I can't take credit for dreaming up what I said, altho I think it's probably pretty close. Google 9-11 Conspiracy theory. You'll find all I said and more. Start with Loose Change. KennyB

[ChloeB]

ChloeB, The calls had to be faked. Have you ever heard or read those calls? Nobody talks like that. Looking for truth, I suppose you mean proof. You know there's no such thing as proof against the govt. However, I can't take credit for dreaming up what I said, altho I think it's probably pretty close. Google 9-11 Conspiracy theory. You'll find all I said and more. Start with Loose Change. KennyB

I've seen a couple of documentaries, Loose Change is one. One talked about some gadget that can replicate a person's voice. I can't remember where I saw this, but in one of those documentaries showed a news report, just a local station that said flight 93 had made an emergency landing in Cleveland. I think that's been claimed a mistake now though.

Edited August 30, 2009 by ChloeB

[frenat]

ChloeB, The calls had to be faked. Have you ever heard or read those calls? Nobody talks like that. Looking for truth, I suppose you mean proof. You know there's no such thing as proof against the govt. However, I can't take credit for dreaming up what I said, altho I think it's probably pretty close. Google 9-11 Conspiracy theory. You'll find all I said and more. Start with Loose Change. KennyB

What about the call where the lady gave a relative the combo to her safe? http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html

[randym23]

insurance payout:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/insurance-scam.htm

[Eldorado]

WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?

The twin towers were purposely destroyed by a group of brainwashed terrorists with a hatred of the United States. End of.

[frenat]

insurance payout:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/insurance-scam.htm

Good analysis here that seems to indicate the opposite

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Particularly interesting is this from here

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

Why would a guy trying to pull off an insurance scam try to buy as little insurance as possible and have to be talked UP?

[KennyB]

Frenat, I can not answer your question. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Flight 93. One that seems likely is that it was shot down by an F-16 on Rumesfelds orders. Wreckage was scattered over an 8 mile area, not likely from a crash, especially since witnesses say there was no wreckage where the explosion occured on the ground. Another likely story is that flight 93 was ordered to land at Cleveland and was setting on the ground at the time it was supposed to have crashed. Check it out on 'Loose Change'.I know nothing I didn't learn from the web or television. If this operation was pulled off by the CIA and the Mossad, everything about it was designed to be confusing. IMHO, KennyB

[Czero 101]

Check it out on 'Loose Change'.I know nothing I didn't learn from the web or television.

Those are your two biggest problems right there.

Cz

[Scott G]

insurance payout:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/insurance-scam.htm

Good analysis here that seems to indicate the opposite

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Particularly interesting is this from here

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Both of those articles fail to address the fact that Silverstein has already made a lot of money. The second article doesn't even really get into it, but the first one is just plain misleading. Whether he ends up keeping a fair amount of the money he's gotten from the insurance companies is another issue, but I really don't think that holding on to large amounts of money is ever easy. I'd also like to point out that while I do like the 9/11 research site for matters relating to the collapse of the WTC towers, the above link provided by randy, despite its name, is not the one I find that best describes how Mr. Silverstein made a profit. I believe their best article on the subject is actually Controlling Interests. Quoting from that article:

Controlling Interests

Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center

The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3

Ownership Change

Author Don Paul investigated this and related issues for his 2002 book, which contains the following passage detailing financial aspects and ownership changes of the complex preceding the attack.

On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.

The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4

In December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the consortium headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Center. The Port Authority rejected a request by the Wall Street Journal to review the transaction. 5 A press report from November 2003 about the same transaction noted that it would allow Silverstein to retain development rights. 6

The lease deal didn't close until July 24th, just 6 weeks before the attack. 7

Insurance Payouts

Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8

The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9

After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value...

In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim. 13

A Parable

To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

Why would a guy trying to pull off an insurance scam try to buy as little insurance as possible and have to be talked UP?

Part of the issue here, I believe, is whether Silverstein knew that the Twin Towers were coming down, or only that the WTC 7 was coming down; many suspect that Silverstein in essence admitted that the building had been "pulled" in an interview; however, I think one should note that no one died in WTC 7. There were certainly many sinister groups who would have been happy that the WTC 7 building was destroyed, as can be seen here:

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

Another thing to ponder is, why did GMAC, a unit of General Motors, which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, insist on getting more insurance for the Twin Towers, in particular terrorist insurance?

There is certainly more to this story, but it does require some reading:

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenants

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security

Edited August 31, 2009 by Scott G

[frenat]

Another thing to ponder is, why did GMAC, a unit of General Motors, which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, insist on getting more insurance for the Twin Towers, in particular terrorist insurance?

Why not? The complex had already been a target of a previous attack. Its not as if they wouldn't have been covered without the clause anyway.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

[Dr. D]

Well, I'm an engineer and I can tell you that steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire in under twenty minutes. Heat can easily weaken steel, it doesn't have to melt.

Can you tell us when and where?

[SRCivic98]

Can you tell us when and where?

also, ask flyingswan, how come the steel had an outward blast radius instead of an imploding radius? normally when building fall they had an implode, never an explode? Unless rigged out source. but who knows besides the poeple behind that that crime.

[merril]

I think there was a small group of Muslims discussing, in a wistful thinking kind of way, the possibility of hijacking some airliners and flying them into the Twin Towers.

Wistful. They were wistful, while their victims were bewitched, bothered, and beheaded.

They were bugged by the FBI. The Bush adm, (CIA) realized they could set up an operation to do this very thing to have their 'New Pearl Harbor'and blame it on Osama and the Muslims.

I'll concede al-Qaeda was likely under some surveillance. What I want is an exact source/quote with context, about Pearl Harbor. Not just that you heard it at the barber shop.

In the actual operation, there were no Muslims involved.

Which would probably drive them to prove a point, once again. I think it is not responsible to completely discount the reality of islamic radicals who have declared some sort of jihad against innocent westerners, or their associates.

[Left-Field]

What I want is an exact source/quote with context, about Pearl Harbor. Not just that you heard it at the barber shop.

"The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses (1997), p.51)"

Edited August 31, 2009 by Broken Arrow

[Scott G]

Another thing to ponder is, why did GMAC, a unit of General Motors, which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, insist on getting more insurance for the Twin Towers, in particular terrorist insurance?

Why not? The complex had already been a target of a previous attack. Its not as if they wouldn't have been covered without the clause anyway.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

I did some reading from the link you provided- Serendipity, the truth movement site linked within your link, actually says that the Twin Towers weren't specifically covered for terrorism.

Perhaps we should leave the issue of the insurance alone for now; I agree that in and of itself it isn't conclusive.

I suggest we look at other motives for the collapse of the towers. Here's the introduction from Kevin Ryan's Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenants:

On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush's former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush's spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press -- "We have no response to silly conspiracy theories." On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech -- "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th."

But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush's own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush's conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bush's own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of the official line, who ultimately proved that explosives were necessary.[2, 5, 6, 7]

This leads us to ask the obvious question -- Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center towers? To answer that question, we should first consider who had access to the buildings, specifically the areas of the buildings that would be relevant to a demolition operation. We should also consider the time periods of interest. Those who had access at the necessary times should be further considered in terms of their ability to obtain the necessary explosive technologies and expertise, their ability to be secretive, and the possibility that they could have benefited from the destruction of the WTC buildings or from the resulting War on Terror. But one thing is certain, unless it was done by one person acting alone, it must have been a conspiracy.

The Twin Towers and WTC 7, all highly secure buildings, were most readily accessed by tenants, security and building management staff, and construction-related contractors.

Evidence suggests that the period of interest should include the years between the 1993 WTC bombing and September 11th, 2001. This evidence includes the warning from 1993 bombing conspirator Nidal Ayyad, who reportedly wrote -- "next time it will be more precise."[8] Additionally, evidence of a multi-year plot included the detailed information that FBI informant and mafia kingpin Gregory Scarpa Jr. received while in jail, as early as 1996, from Al-Qaeda operative Ramzi Yousef, while imprisoned in the adjacent cell. Yousef described plans to "bring New York to its knees" by blowing up the World Trade Center with American-owned "flying massive bombs." Scarpa Jr. provided this information to Assistant US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and FBI Counsel Valerie Caproni, who were apparently not interested.[9] Another example is the recorded conversation between FBI informant Randy Glass and Pakistani ISI agent Raja Gulum Abbas, in which Abbas claimed "Those towers are coming down", indicating that a plan was in progress as of July 1999.[10]

Throughout the life of the WTC buildings, modifications were made to each structure. The modifications included upgrades to electrical, fire protection, and elevator systems, as well as general construction activities. As a rule, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) was responsible for initiating the modifications in the public access areas, and the tenants were responsible for completing the modifications throughout the leased spaces.[11] For this reason, the tenant companies would have been capable of coordinating the installation of explosive materials and other devices with reasonable certainty that those materials would not be detected by others. For a demolition plan to work, however, such tenants would need to be managed as a group, and explosives would need to be placed on enough floors to ensure the fall of each building through what would otherwise have been the path of most resistance.

While examining the tenants in each critical area, we should ask – Cui Bono? That is, who benefited from the destruction of the WTC buildings, and the resulting War on Terror? The obvious answer includes, primarily, the Bush Administration and its friends. It also includes overlapping groups of oil and gas companies, defense contractors, and those who desired to wield undue influence on international policies related to a wide number of issues from civil rights to space domination...

[flyingswan]

Can you tell us when and where?

Googling "steel warehouse fire collapse" returns 265,000 hits. Here's an example from the first page:

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/printer.jsp?id=55267

The roof of the Sofa Super Store's main showroom, where six of the dead firefighters' bodies were found, was supported by a steel truss, a type of structure notorious among firefighters for concealing dangerous overhead fires and causing sudden roof collapse.

.

.

.

That investigation report said the incident commander needs to be especially cautious if the building has a steel truss roof because such roofs can conceal fire and can collapse within 6 to 13 minutes.

[flyingswan]

also, ask flyingswan, how come the steel had an outward blast radius instead of an imploding radius? normally when building fall they had an implode, never an explode? Unless rigged out source. but who knows besides the poeple behind that that crime.

When a thin column collapses, it buckles. This means that the centre of the column moves rapidly sideways while the ends approach each other. This sideways movement means that a steel wall column can be ejected either inwards or outwards, depending on the direction of the buckle. Also, when a building collapses, the air inside is forced out and can take material outwards.

I think you are confusing demolition and collapse. To achieve a pure "implode" you need to cut every column. A demolition can "implode" a building, while a collapse can eject material outwards.