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.

[Ed Jewett]

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???

You need to learn more about the courses in exercise design in the system known as NIMS... national incident management system -- in which exercises are created and tested in both classroom settings as well as in full-blown walk-through drills involving the movement of many agencies, vehicles, people. It is the same thing "turned inside out" in terms of intent. I have participated in table-top drills involving as many as 50 people. I have been in incident command centers and EOM's at the local municipal or statewide level with as many as 50 people, each armed with a telephone and a computer, each with a big screen overview in front of them. You should see if you can find images of the "situation rooms" used inside the government. The purpose of the myriad of drills, exercises and simulations in the months before 9/11 was in all likelihood to draw out information about how things worked, how things were "seen" by other players, how systems interacted, etc. Keep in mind that the Federal Government had, at its beck-and-call, numerous computerized systems. Poindexter's work in total information awareness is key among them. Keep in mind that the offices of the NRO (as well as others) were "disabled" by evacuation. Cheney was a master of the AAR (after-action report) and "lessons learned" aspects of drills:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7521

You need to go back to the original source -- I have, and I have posted about it at length for years, and it has been mirrored in several locations -- which include the work of USAF Lt.Col. John Boyd (focused mostly on his OODA loop theory, but which goes beyond that), and which found life in practice in military systems in the run-up to Desert Storm (an activity that involved dozens of units -air, land, sea -- over thousands ofd square miles) and which was coordinated with a spreadsheet, which was then turned into a civilian tool and used in the system under the direct command of Dick Cheney that day. You could Google "Dick Cheney OODA" and it used to be that my posting would come up #1 but it is now re-directed to a useless site. I know where the original is, and I know what I know, and I know the work I did to create that info. It had applications and implications in computer technology as well, since Boyd himself stole a million dollars worth of computer time to do his research into the energy maneuverability elements of the F-15.

There was no perfect reliability. If you look at the events of that day, even centered simply on lower Manhattan, you will find dozens of things that simply did not go right... aberrations, if you will .. that emerge to the uninformed witness and even researcher as anomalies or events that seem to fall outside the thesis or the evidence. You need to understand the prevalent mind-set of the militarized US world at that time which involved was is known as "free play" in which some actors are purposefully given freedom and license to improvise within a framework of intent.

I think sometimes that researchers in this arena want every little nugget to fit pristinely as if it were a giant table-top puzzle. But the OODA loop and my understanding of incident management and response -- which derives in great part from Enrico Quarantelli's monographs on disasters at his Disaster Research Center -- both allow and insist upon seeing these kinds of things as dynamic events. Boyd specifically speaks to this in his monograph "Destruction and Creation", borrowing upon "the Uncertainty Principle". The event is changing and manifesting while we are standing there.

As for who directed the managers, the answer seems clear, given the titular and formal authority given over to Cheney and Rumsfeld, given the proven use of virtually-connected spreadsheets and scripts, etc. Who directed them? The answer would be illuminating.

As before, I am agnostic, untrained, uninformed about matters of ignition, bombs, destruction, etc. I was offered a "career path" to become a Special Ops soldier in college, but I declined and devoted my life to life-saving. And that has made all the difference.

[Ed Jewett]

For further info on the cyber elements of 9/11:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...A-loop-etc. (which in part mirrored my earlier blog entries at CGCS on Cheney and the OODA loop)

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...57&&st=310 which will lead you to seven parts of a piece called "Is This Real World or Exercise: Cyber-PsyOps Warfare and 9/11" written by me... Part IV in particular has these links to the very specific discussions of the OODA loop:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...wentry=601

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...wentry=604

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...wentry=605


And, somewhere here at DPF, inside the links section, you will find links to what was called "The Lynx Lair" at a small discussion board started by me and a few friends called E Pluribus Unum. That was my entree to the DPF community.

That website is now offline to all except those who have prior membership and a password. I do, and I believe Magda does, and I can go and retrieve what is there when necessary.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lauren wrote:

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?)

You think because why?

some video and photo evidence shows white clouds ejected from the bottom of first tower to go down.

Of course there were things exploding and catching fire and causing smoke BEFORE the collapse. The largest refrigeration plant in the world (I think) was under the towers and it was full of think which would "explode" and give off white smoke...

(Explosives) Molten metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower prior to collapse. (Incendiary: thermite?)

Yes some metal was observed in one corner of one floor... let's see 110x4x2 corners = 880 corners and something metal came out of floor 80 of the south tower. And what was interesting about floor 80 NE corner?

It was just below the location where an engine or some plane part exploded out of the building. If it was an engine... it was attached to a wing which carried thousands of pounds of fuel... YES lots of fuel exploded on impact... but not ALL the fuel

The corner was also the location of a huge lead acid back up power supply. Lead and very heavy copper, both of which melt at quite low temperatures... Batteries which short and arc can produce temps of thousands of degrees.

It seems to me that the metal could be something other than thermite or melter steel. And note that when tower 2 did begin to come down... it tilted AWAY from the corner you claim was attacked by thermite. Makes no sense.

After the collapse, there are some core columns still standing. They come straight down as a unit.

The remain core columns collapse from "self buckling" after the lost their bracing. Look up Euler and slenderness ratios for steel columns. If a steel column is taller than 150x its shortest plan dimension (22" for CC501) and it's height was about 77 floors..77x12'x12" which give it a slender ratio of over 500. The columns buckled below their mid point and broke into 36' lengths which are SEEN LYING IN THE DEBRIS PILE WITH NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLODED JOINTS.

Lauren have you carefully LOOKED at the evidence or are you repeating what you read on the internet?

Have you a background in structural engineering, material science, physics? We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.

Trust by verify.

[Kyle Burnett]

It looks like to YOU but it doesn't look like to OTHERS as a "pressure wave" from explosions.

That "pressure wave" is your words, not mine, and others have said it looks like what I did say.

The wind pulse was very much LIKE an pressure pulse from an explosion

What way(s) are you suggesting such ejections were "LIKE" the result of explosions, if not in the way that they looked?

I find it hard to fathom how timed explosions would be set off with such precision to provide the uniform ejections from each window around the perimeter.

I find it ridiculous that you are now claiming "uniform ejections" after having just previously insisted your "collapsing floor / avalanche was NOT uniform", and while videos show various ejections far below your supposed "avalanche".

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.

I never put any stock into such arguments, as massive covert projects like MK-ULTRA and Operation Gladio went on for decades before being exposed. Such long running conspiracies makes a one-off project like rigging a few buildings full of explosives look like child's play by comparison. Granted, my main contention with the notion that steel framed highrises could come down so quickly and completely without having being rigged with explosives throughout them is the utter lack of any examples to demonstrate as much.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Kyle,

The compress air can be displaced by an entire floor at once... unlikely (pancake) or parts of a floor (more likely) and show large bursts through the windows... so the collapse need not be entirely uniform... but it's pretty fast and we don't get to see too much of it anyway before it is obscured by the falling dust.

Haritt admitted to me last Fall that the ejections could be compressed escaping air as easily as they can be exploding... rapidly expanding gas. One can't tell and the speed of the ejections doesn't appear to me to be an explosion... But I am not an expert.

Everyone has an opinion about what something look likes. Some people's opinions, for what it's worth are more informed and better observers. Lemkin said any child can see it was an explosion. I would rather not leave this determination to a child.

We can agree that the ejections were debris carried by AIR moving very rapidly... and the speed CAN be measured and compared experimentally to explosions. So why hasn't anyone done it?

[Kyle Burnett]

Jeffery, I'm still wondering: what way(s) are you suggesting such ejections were "LIKE" the result of explosions, if not in the way that they looked?

[Jeffrey Orling]

I am suggesting that both involve rapidly moving air. But you can't be certain what caused the air to be moving as it was.

[Kyle Burnett]

So then, do agree that the expulsions were "very much LIKE an pressure pulse from an explosion" in the way that they looked? Please answer with a simple yes or no.

[Jeffrey Orling]

YES and so one can't tell what actually caused them. I think there are reasons to think they were pressurized air from the collapsing floor mass.