+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis (/thread-7287.html)
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Charles Drago - 09-08-2011
I have no idea if the following has been addressed elsewhere.
HYPOTHESIS:
Given the unprecedented (at the time of their design/construction) height and mass of WTC 1 and 2 and thus the potential for unprecedented disaster in the event of collapse(s), controlled demolition capabilities were put in place during the construction phase.
The configuration of the system(s) would have allowed for relatively inconspicuous and/or easily disguised maintenance and updating.
This plan and its implementation would have been closely guarded secrets for reasons relating to security and financial matters.
At some point, WTC 7 would have been fitted or retrofitted with similar capabilities.
The "pull it" comment would make sense within this hypothesis.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Kyle Burnett - 09-08-2011
I pondered a variation of this shortly after the attacks, and proposed it back when I first started discussing 9/11 on the net and foolishly let my Google search for discussions on the matter lead me to [url=;http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5094896&postcount=679]JREF:
kylebisme Wrote:put simply, the buildings could have been rigged to blow for the sake of public safety. Imagine how much much death and destruction would have resulted had the top of the building slid off the side. Then imagine how even more horrific the results would have been had the towers been toppled over after being bombed at their bases.Beyond providing one possible explanation for how the towers came to be covertly rigged in the first place; such a rigged-for-safety situation would also explain why NIST didn't even attempt a detailed description of how the towers came down beyond where they claim the buildings were "poised for collapse". Taken at face value, that vindicates activation of the safety systems, while any attempt to provide an explanation of the demolitions as gravity driven collapses beyond NIST's half-a-page of hand waving at it would be a transparent display of the authors' aptitude at dry-labing to those aware of the rigging, conceivably prompting some of those insiders to scrutinize the bogus science behind NIST's claims that "global collapse was inevitable".
Those were undeniable possibilities, particularly after the 1993 bombing. In the worst case scenario of such an attack, being able to demolish the towers into their footprint, or at least as they fell, would prevent a far worse situation than what otherwise would have resulted. Granted, telling the public at large that such high value targets are rigged to blow would result in many being irrationally wary of ever going near them. So those involved would have to be sworn to secrecy, and at least most with little or nothing to compel them to come forward with such information today.
As for WTC 7, it seems a likely candidate for being rigged to destroy all the sensitive information within it in the case of a major security breach, as does the Murrah building. If those hypotheses are correct, then there are a lot of people who do know the buildings were rigged with incendiaries and explosives, but don't suspect any nefarious intent in doing so, and don't see any reason to let the public in on such information.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Malcolm Pryce - 09-08-2011
Personally, the more the years pass the more I have come to believe that the (in)famous 'pull it' comment was deliberately conceived as a fake smoking gun to bamboozle us Troofers. If you look at the video of Larry Silverstein saying it, it is abundantly clear that he knew what he was saying, it wasn't a slip of the tongue. The result was, the Troofers went bananas, here it was, the smoking gun, controlled demolition etc.. And yet the context in which the 'pull it' comment is embedded is preposterous. Is it remotely likely that the fire chief would be having a discussion of that nature with the building owner? Do they really make such operational decisions after consulting with the building owner? I don't think so. And is it remotely likely that, even if the buildings were pre-wired with explosives, the decision to demolish would be taken so casually by the building owner on the phone to the fire chief? You just look like an idiot asserting this, which presumably was the intention. The point is, the buildings clearly were pre-wired with explosives, and Silverstein almost certainly knew this, but he almost certainly didn't have the telephone conversation he claims to have had. Other such fake smoking guns, in my opinion, include the claim made at the time of the July 7 London bombings that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been warned about the bombs that morning by Scotland Yard. If MOSSAD were behind the bombings (and who knows, maybe they were) then why would Scotland Yard be the ones to warn Netanyahu? And why only a few minutes before? And why warn him at all, does he regularly travel by Tube? By repeating this story one looks stupid and discredits the thesis that MOSSAD were involved, even though they may well have been.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Charles Drago - 09-08-2011
Kyle,
Thank you for this information.
To reiterate, I was not aware of any such rigged-for-demolition hypothesis when it first occured to me on September 11, 2001 or at any other time until I read your post minutes ago.
Malcolm,
As for Silverstein's "pull it" comment: I commend you on your interpretation of the motives for the remark. Cognitive dissonance and dissension in the ranks have followed upon it, with the result that the broad dismissal of Silverstein's comment as a "demolish" order serves to direct us away from consideration of pre-rigging or any other controlled demolition scenario.
"How could the buildings have been rigged in such a short time frame?" is the question that was begged. And it is, of course, the wrong question.
When the inevitable answer -- "They couldn't have been rigged in such a short time frame" -- is provided, we must move on to other matters.
Brilliant.
Savagely so.
I do disagree with you regarding the Murrah Building, however. Different construction, different scenario.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Kyle Burnett - 10-08-2011
Sure, there are many differences between the Murrah building and the WTC 7, but some notable similarities as well. Regardless, I was only suggesting that both could have been rigged to destroy sensitive information within them in case of a major security breach, and targeted to destroy such information.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Gary Severson - 10-08-2011
The PBS interview years back of the WTC architect incld. his comment that the buildings were an accident waiting to happen because of their unique construction. He regretted having them designed as they were. Maybe his comments reflect the hypothesis that they were therefore pre-rigged for demolition. The fact that the upper floors were shut down for 2 weeks prior to 9/11 by some accounts indicated demolition work was being put in place. This may have been necessary to complete what was already in place as far as pre-designed demolition capabilities.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 13-08-2011
Charles Drago Wrote:I have no idea if the following has been addressed elsewhere.
HYPOTHESIS:
Given the unprecedented (at the time of their design/construction) height and mass of WTC 1 and 2 and thus the potential for unprecedented disaster in the event of collapse(s), controlled demolition capabilities were put in place during the construction phase.
The configuration of the system(s) would have allowed for relatively inconspicuous and/or easily disguised maintenance and updating.
This plan and its implementation would have been closely guarded secrets for reasons relating to security and financial matters.
At some point, WTC 7 would have been fitted or retrofitted with similar capabilities.
The "pull it" comment would make sense within this hypothesis.
Also, Charles, remember that:
1) All three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) had been evacuated twice, floor by floor, in June and July of 2001, and:
2) Anyone with access to the elevator shafts would have been able to plant demolition charges in all three buildings.
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Charles Drago - 13-08-2011
James Lewis Wrote:Also, Charles, remember that:
1) All three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) had been evacuated twice, floor by floor, in June and July of 2001, and:
2) Anyone with access to the elevator shafts would have been able to plant demolition charges in all three buildings.
I do remember.
And I would expand upon your second point: "[They] would have been able to plant demolition charges [and/or update, modify, and examine the condition of existing] demolition charges [and systems] in all three buildings."
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 14-08-2011
And this little nugget:
"If the World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives, which is the only reasonable explanation for what the world witnessed, then a considerable amount of advance work would have had to be done. Such an operation presumably would have had to be run through the WTC's security service, since that is the entity given unrestricted access to the buildings, and, of equal importance, the entity with the authority to restrict the access of others."
"A business entity now known as Stratesec, Inc. began performing security work at the World Trade Center in 1993. In 1996, the company, then known as Securacom, was awarded an exclusive contract to provide security for the World Trade Center complex. Stratesec/Securacom also provided security for United Airlines and Dulles International Airport, two other key players in the 9-11 story. Sitting on Stratesec's board of directors, from the time the company began working at the WTC, was a major shareholder by the name of Marvin Bush. Marvin, like Jeb and Neil, is a brother of George W. Bush. Small world, isn't it?"
Charles Drago Wrote:James Lewis Wrote:Also, Charles, remember that:
1) All three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) had been evacuated twice, floor by floor, in June and July of 2001, and:
2) Anyone with access to the elevator shafts would have been able to plant demolition charges in all three buildings.
I do remember.
And I would expand upon your second point: "[They] would have been able to plant demolition charges [and/or update, modify, and examine the condition of existing] demolition charges [and systems] in all three buildings."
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Bill Kelly - 15-08-2011
As far as I can tell, there was no controlled demolition of any building at the WTC site, and they were all brought down by flawed design, airplane cashes and fire. There was an earlier attempt to bring them down by a truck bomb that failed. Those who want to continue to propose that the buildings were brought down by controlled demos only need to look at the videos of real controlled demos - such as the destruction of the Traymore Hotel on the Atlantic City Boardwalk in the early 1970s which clearly show the building being brought down from the bottom up while the WTC clearly went down from the top down.
I agree with Tony and Robbyn Summers in that these false conspiracy theories do nothing for our understanding of what really occurred on 9/11 other than to distract from the real issues that should be addressed.
Bill Kelly