People Could Have Planted Bombs In the World Trade Center Without Anyone Noticing

[Lauren Johnson]

Good points all, Lauren. But, of course, in my opinion, the buildings were bombed, but that's neither here nor there as far as your points go. The important question, when you say that "they" destroyed three buildings on national TV, and "they" got away with it, is, who exactly are they?

Ed,

I find your "script" overly complex, despite almost unlimited budgets. Coordinating hundreds if not thousands of actors, rehearsals, devices with perfect reliability and a plan that needs to step though the script absent and FUBARs. Not likely to happen.

My (and others) research seems to point to a rather simple means to take down the towers (twins)... and this would accordingly require few "managers" ... few mechanics ... very little "stealth"...and much much less possibility for FUBAR. The "take down" would also end up looking like a "natural collapse" as opposed to a CD and it would destroy most of the evidence of the engineered "take down".

Such an operation would still require covert assets and access to "high tech" demolition devices (mechanics) provided with ordinance etc... by those with access to same (managers).

But who directed the managers... and what were their motives as it seems like there were several???

Jeff, it seems to me your "natural collapse" theory is another version of the CD version of A and E. After all, the intended results were the same. Maybe you are correct.

Your argument solves problems you have with the CD theory: its cost is huge, the mechanics create complexity that can cause things to go wrong, too many people involved (somebody would have talked), etc.

You could have some good points. In some ways, the perps of 9/11 did not need to bring the buildings down to achieve their results to achieve their political agendas. They wanted to bring them down to destroy evidence and to clear the way for the new buildings.

Finally, having spent a lot of time reading at DPF, it appears that the technology to erase memories has now been developed. You can't talk about what you can't remember. Perfect crime.

In sum, I am saying that what you are arguing is not all that important. They destroyed three buildings on live TV. They got away with it. And we are just left arguing about reality.

I personally think some combination of explosives and incendiary devices were used. For example, even before the collapse, some video and photo evidence shows white clouds ejected from the bottom of first tower to go down. (Explosives) After the collapse, there are some core columns still standing. They come straight down as a unit. (Explosives) Molten metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower prior to collapse. (Incendiary: thermite?)

I do not pretend to argue this with JO since he is correct: I do not have credentials even though in did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. (Reference to US TV commercial).

Who are the "they?" Sponsors? I suspect there are a distribution of sponsors embedded throughout many institutions and corporations and governments. How hierarchical they are, who knows? But to carry this thing off, it had to have been very carefully planned and organized. That implies a bureaucracy of some sort. One hell of a bureaucracy. And somehow, they involved intelligence assets from the Turkish Grey Wolves(?), the Pakistani ISI(?), most certainly the Mossad, and many assets within the US military and intelligence apparatus. George W. Bush? A sucker. Cheney? An enthusiastic player of some kind.

My guess is that the Continuity of Government initiative provided the bureaucratic infrastructure. Another guess is that many participants had their memories wiped clean. And the final irony would be that they now fervently believe the "myth of 9/11" even though they themselves helped bring the towers down.