Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is

Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is consistent with all the known facts?

easy , you remove the asbestos from the inner core and put nothing back ,
you plant the explosives under a 7 year period (from the first bomb attempt)
then you fly two planes in to the towers as a divertion
then when all hell is loose you push the button and see the horror evolve

couldent be any simpler

Originally posted by zerbot565
easy , you remove the asbestos from the inner core and put nothing back ,
you plant the explosives under a 7 year period (from the first bomb attempt)
then you fly two planes in to the towers as a divertion
then when all hell is loose you push the button and see the horror evolve

couldent be any simpler

what kind of explosives and how much? how often would there be a person or people coming in to plant explosives to get the job done?

What is the need for diversion?

Just blow it up. No need for planes.

Originally posted by zerbot565
easy , you remove the asbestos from the inner core and put nothing back ,
you plant the explosives under a 7 year period (from the first bomb attempt)
then you fly two planes in to the towers as a divertion
then when all hell is loose you push the button and see the horror evolve

couldent be any simpler

He said a VIABLE method, not a Bugs Bunny saturday morning cartoon method. The NYPA had a full time staff of maintenance crews taking care of the building just like every other large building does. When an inspector looking for corrosion or metal fatigue comes across a support beam with the fireproofing scraped off and mysterious packages wired onto it, he's sure as shootin' going to call in security. After the 1993 bombing the NYPA wouldn't even allow any anonymous workmen in and set it up unsupervised to begin with.

My issue with CD is the following:

If for some reason a plane missed its mark or didnt make it to target, or lets just say grazed one of the WTC buildings, what would the contingency be?

PULL IT?

I mean whats the plan if their plan go's south?
So you collapse one building and then claim that its debris destroyed the other tower in the same way it was destroyed; they just go ahead and detonate the other building even though the damage was far less than what would be required to take down a building?

What if the plane never even made it, but the whole 911 thing is in full swing?
blow the buildings up anyway and just say that the terrorists planted bombs?
this whole thing smells like low tide at the docks from both angles, truther and debunker.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


how is that statement you made even possible with art students running around ?

reply to post by snowen20


What...you mean like WTC7 for instance?

There was NO chance the building could be left intact and keep a lid on the conspiracy.

It HAD to be 'pulled', and so it was...even Silverstein slipped and admitted it was 'pulled'.

The control of PA plane was somehow lost, whether you want to say the passengers revolted or the guidance system on the controlling AWACS went haywire, it doesn't matter - the plane was lost, and couldn't hit WTC7..so it had to come down, one way or another.

reply to post by spikey


Absolutely.

Funny thing is even while writing that last post, I saw what you just mentioned. lol among other things too.

Its quite late where I live soooooo ya know.

reply to post by snowen20


No worries mate, many a time i've sat up on this board with fighting with droopy eyelids too!


Get some sleep.

Originally posted by butcherguy
What is the need for diversion?

Just blow it up. No need for planes.

The motis operandi of the forces that did this must always do two things, record what they did, and have a believable patsy to blame. Its always preferable to them to have more than one plausible patsy, this way the guilty can slip away under a blanket of misdirection and confusion.

Originally posted by snowen20
My issue with CD is the following:

If for some reason a plane missed its mark or didnt make it to target, or lets just say grazed one of the WTC buildings, what would the contingency be?

PULL IT?

No, you couldn't pull it. You'd need 400 miles of cables to pull that gigantic thing down and it'd only topple over onto neighboring buildings.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

how is that statement you made even possible with art students running around ?

I think William Rodriguez would be able to tell the difference between an art student and someone wiring mysterious packages onto every support column in the building. Wouldn't you?

Originally posted by spikey
The control of PA plane was somehow lost, whether you want to say the passengers revolted or the guidance system on the controlling AWACS went haywire, it doesn't matter - the plane was lost, and couldn't hit WTC7..so it had to come down, one way or another.

...and just HOW were they going to hit WTC 7 when the plane was heading for Reagan in D.C....?

This should be good.

The entire problem with the CD theory is that the collapse started at the point of impact on both towers. That's it plain and simple. If the collapse would have started above or below the point of impact, then I'd say that CD was possible. If I was planning to drop both towers, I'd concentrate on the structure right at ground level. Compromise enough vertical supports and the entire tower collapses. Your explosive charges would have to be bigger, but you wouldn't have as much detonating cord to run and it could be done with fewer people. Then you could get away with using a couple of tractor trailers as truck bombs as your cover.

reply to post by butcherguy


the reason they used planes is because they knew everyone would then watch. the purpose for a psyop is to attack as many people as possible. what percentage of people awake and near a tv or radio that day, do you think somehow witnessed it? the more who see it, the better. if they just blew it up... we'd be looking at a completely different story.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by butcherguy
What is the need for diversion?

Just blow it up. No need for planes.

The motis operandi of the forces that did this must always do two things, record what they did, and have a believable patsy to blame. Its always preferable to them to have more than one plausible patsy, this way the guilty can slip away under a blanket of misdirection and confusion.

What forces?

Al Qaeda?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by butcherguy

 

the reason they used planes is because they knew everyone would then watch. the purpose for a psyop is to attack as many people as possible. what percentage of people awake and near a tv or radio that day, do you think somehow witnessed it? the more who see it, the better. if they just blew it up... we'd be looking at a completely different story.

I have yet to see any hard evidence of psyops.

The only conspiracy that I can believe with 9/11 is that the government knew it was going to happen and left it happen.

Originally posted by patriots4truth
Can anyone provide a technically viable method of performing a CD on the World Trade Center that is consistent with all the known facts?

Yes the building was probably wired with explosives a month prior to the attack. "Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11." Interview with Scott Forbes Interview with Scott Forbes

here is a video interview with him

reply to post by patriots4truth


Yea ram a fully fueled 767 into building at 500 + mph - watch as resulting fires cause the steel to twist and fail