Why the Delay?

I'm admittedly probably not the top 9/11 researcher here; I've followed a few threads and looked at a few other sites, but not as in depth as most of you I'm sure. I do have one question--probably been asked and answered a few times, but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking through all the threads and sites that are out there.

The most popular theories against the "official line" are that the towers were intentionally destroyed by explosives (or otherwise not by the impacts of the planes.) The first plane hit the north tower at 8:46 am, the second plane hit at 9:03. The south tower collapsed about an hour later, and the north tower collapsed about half an hour after that. (Those figures are pretty common; I got mine from here.)

So why the delay? Why not just have your finger on the detonator, and as you're sitting in an office a few blocks away you hit the button a few seconds after the second plane hit? Bam, both towers gone, with less time to evacuate. Even more fuel for the war fires (if that's the underlying goal that is.) Why give people so much video footage to analyze? Why not make it just seem that more apparent that the planes brought down the towers instead of having to worry about questions regarding structural weakening?

Like I said, I'm sure this has been asked and answered before. If anyone can find a suitable link to such an answer, I'd appreciate it, although I would like opinions.

Hard to say for sure, but I think the delay was mainly for psychological effect. Seeing the WTC Towers struck by aircraft and on fire is shocking enough; seeing them fall like that is just traumatic. Literally, massive numbers of Americans suffered from PTSD after 9/11, all across the country.

I have a personal theory as to why WTC2 fell first but it's just a theory. My idea is that the fire was getting too close to dying out, so they didn't want to run the risk of having to cover that up. It would be a pretty big problem in their logic (in fact, the darkening smoke is problem enough). I don't have much to go on, but that's as good as I can do with that question.

I would imagine they could have easily knocked either tower out first without problem in the official line. Think about it..

If WTC1 needed to fall first, they could say it was because it was hit first, obviously.

If WTC2 needed to fall first, they could say it was because of the lower impact point and additional weight those floors would've had to have held.

The buildings' impact damages coincided so that precisely either of those explanations could have been used. If WTC2 had been impacted higher than WTC1, for example, the above wouldn't work.

Again, just an idea.

Fair enough, and that was a scenario I was considering myself. The more people who get the chance to see it on TV, the more people who'll support the war. However, there's two additional things to consider from that perspective.

What psychological effect did WTC 7 have? That seemed almost anti-climatic, and that's the one that most people will say was demo'ed regardless of where they stand on the other towers.

Also, it's possible that an instantaneous collapse might've had an equal, if not greater psychological affect. I suffered (relatively mildly, I'm sure) from the traumatic affects of the attack, and I'm sure having it draw out and then replayed constantly didn't help that at all. But what would it've been like if it was a "here-today-gone-tomorrow" scenario? Where people didn't have the time to call their loved ones and say good bye, didn't have the time to decide whether they wanted to jump or get burned?

How much would it have pissed the nation off and gotten us ready for war, the whole scenario over in twenty minutes instead of giving us some time to at least consider the possibility the towers--at least the second one--would collapse? Psychological affect is there, but I think if it were the main goal for the delay they could've gotten a bit more dramatic.

The official story is NOT that the towers were brought down by the planes alone.

Anybody in their right minds would know that would have been ludicrous.

They suggest that it was from the subsequent fires from the jet fuel weakening the support columns and the "load shift" from the damaged areas.

Naturally the fires would have to burn for a while for that to be the case so the fact that they only waited 1 hour and 1 hour + 45 minutes respectively obviously shows that they "pulled the trigger" as soon as they possibly could but also as late as they could since the fires were clearly dying out.

Of course this is also ludicrous since we know the fires couldn't have been hot enough and also when considering the explosive nature of the collpase, rapidity of the fall, and totality of the destruction it is all quite difficult to swallow.


Does this really look like "pancaking" to anybody???



and then in about 10 to 15 seconds the entire structure was reduced to this single steel spire that DISINTEGRATED before our very eyes.......




how on earth could a natural collapse due to failure of support cause steel to disintegrate?

Oh and obviously they didn't pull wtc 7 for psychological effect.

That would have been for a few reasons.......

A) Destruction of evidence...(it housed FEMA, FBI, CIA, and Rudy Guliani's command bunker for the entire city and could very well have been "command central for 9/11).

B) Insurance fraud. Silverstein cleaned up on wtc 7.

But we know that it wasn't for psychological reasons because the media barely talked about it AND the 9/11 commission COMPLETEY IGNORED IT!!!!!!!!

That last fact alone is indicting in a high level cover-up of massive proportions.

free fall speed


classic crimp in the support columns


perfect neat little rubble pile

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Naturally the fires would have to burn for a while for that to be the case so the fact that they only waited 1 hour and 1 hour + 45 minutes respectively obviously shows that they "pulled the trigger" as soon as they possibly could but also as late as they could since the fires were clearly dying out.

Of course this is also ludicrous since we know the fires couldn't have been hot enough and also when considering the explosive nature of the collpase, rapidity of the fall, and totality of the destruction it is all quite difficult to swallow.

This is where I start to have a problem here. In essentially the same breath, you're saying that there's a group of people who are smart enough to

a) Arrange for the hijacking of at least four planes--no biggie, security was much more lax back then.

b) Create an exceptional back story for the hijackers, to the point of ensuring they were enrolled in flight schools at some point in time.

c) Coordinate the kamikazi attacks of the four planes while managing to keep NORAD on a leash, even if it means just creating a reasonable cover story.

d) Somehow plant explosive charges under the noses of a WTC population the size of a small town without anyone noticing.

e) Manipulate the general public for 4+ years into believing the original story.

This group of people was smart enough to cover their bases, but they weren't smart enough to open a first year college level chemistry book to find the properties of jet fuel vs. the properties of steel? I mean, they would even need someone with that kind of knowledge to place the charges--why not ask that person "Hey, is this plausible?" If not, go back to the drawing board. There's plenty of other equally dramatic types of attacks that could've been done with apparently much more realism.

More directly on topic, I can agree with you on the possible reasons WTC 7 was demolished. Although, in keeping with the devil's advocate mentality, it could be argued that the 9/11 comission ignored WTC 7 because it didn't have as much psychological impact. It wasn't as important to figure out what happened there as to the towers, so they focused their time elsewhere.

I think the chances of it not being a set up are greater than it being as it was portrayed as,my first impression of the building collapsing was it was a perfect drop,too perfect,about as believable as the Oklahoma bombing by a truck full of fertilizer,I do believe fertilizer was spread as the reason for that building comming down,if you understood the way buildings are built,and all government buildings are built to far surpass hat of a residential or office building,I think that the American public ae too afraid to think that their own country could do this to their own people,plus how quickly the offenders were dealt with,if something of this nature was true I'm sure there would have been an in depth study,but seems evidence was swept away like dirt under the rug

Orgininally by MCory1
This group of people was smart enough to cover their bases, but they weren't smart enough to open a first year college level chemistry book to find the properties of jet fuel vs. the properties of steel?

The people who are behind 9/11 don't have any respect for the American people, why would they care whether or not you believe the official story five years down the line? How can these people be brought to justice when the system that supports them is corrupt in the first place?

It is too easy to focus attention on a particular area and waste energy arguing over the details. Ask yourself why people still believe that a Boeing 767 crashed into the Pentagon or how cell phone calls can be made with impunity from high altitude from Flight 93 or that Bin Laden was responsible because of a very dubious video of someone who looks nothing like Bin Laden.

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted …they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie… It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Adolf Hitler, 1925

Originally posted by MCory1
This is where I start to have a problem here. In essentially the same breath, you're saying that there's a group of people who are smart enough to

a) Arrange for the hijacking of at least four planes--no biggie, security was much more lax back then.

I don't believe any planes were hijacked. I believe the planes that hit the buildings were unmanned military drones.

b) Create an exceptional back story for the hijackers, to the point of ensuring they were enrolled in flight schools at some point in time.

Yes.

c) Coordinate the kamikazi attacks of the four planes while managing to keep NORAD on a leash, even if it means just creating a reasonable cover story.

This is where the incredibly coincidental war games come into play. This is a common false flag terrorism tactic. Stage simultaneous "drills" as a back story in case something goes wrong and in this case as confusion for norad.

d) Somehow plant explosive charges under the noses of a WTC population the size of a small town without anyone noticing.

Yes. That is no biggie. We have a whole thread devoted to this.

e) Manipulate the general public for 4+ years into believing the original story.

Yes. The psyops started on the day of 9/11 as soon as bin laden name was floated and have continued non-stop ever since.

This group of people was smart enough to cover their bases, but they weren't smart enough to open a first year college level chemistry book to find the properties of jet fuel vs. the properties of steel? I mean, they would even need someone with that kind of knowledge to place the charges--why not ask that person "Hey, is this plausible?" If not, go back to the drawing board. There's plenty of other equally dramatic types of attacks that could've been done with apparently much more realism.

They counted on the planes to work as diversion and for the scale of the attack to have no precedent to check against. Worked pretty well didn't it?

More directly on topic, I can agree with you on the possible reasons WTC 7 was demolished. Although, in keeping with the devil's advocate mentality, it could be argued that the 9/11 comission ignored WTC 7 because it didn't have as much psychological impact. It wasn't as important to figure out what happened there as to the towers, so they focused their time elsewhere.

The purpose of the 9/11 commission was NOT to figure out a reason for the collapse or to only focus on details that had "psychological impact.

The Commission’s Final Report provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.

They lied.

government source