This is what I remember

I have never posted to the 9/11 forum before,
even with being a member of ATS for about 2 years.
I do so for the first time here.



This is what I remember

A Muslim cleric was put on trial for the twin towers bombing. I don't know if anyone remembers this or not. But they parked a van full of explosives in the basement of one corner of a tower. Being a bit of an armature architect I analyzed the placement. My conclusion was this. The plan was to cause the one tower to fall into the other tower.

The van was parked in that one particular corner of the basement on purpose. The plan was to take out that corner and cause the tower to fall in a specific direction rather like felling a tree. Then when it struck it's sister tower, they would both fall across the city of New York and leave a huge swath of damage where the bodies of the towers fell.

Years later we come to September the eleventh two thousand and one. I'm sleeping on the couch and my roommate comes in waking me up all excited. "Wake up! We're under attack! I've got food." I look, and he has two huge bags of take out food from the restaurant he works at. He sets down the bags as I turn on the TV. One tower is on fire.

He further says "Man, there are cops everywhere downtown like someone stirred up a hornets nest." We are living in Downtown Baton Rouge at the time. He says "We had just finished cooking everything for lunch when he boss comes in and says 'I'm not about gettin killed over some food, shut it down!' And he let everyone off."


So I watch, live, as the second plane hits.
Here is my first thought.

"Looks like they are failing to knock the towers over again. See how the one plane came in from a direction where if the tower struck were knocked over it would leave a huge path of destruction in one direction, and the second plane came in from the other direction to knock that tower into it's own path of destruction.

I think the second plane hit higher up cause the pilot saw that the first tower hadn't fallen over."

My roommate just says "Hmm."

Then... when a tower falls I immediately think this.

"That's a controlled demolition. Pretty smart. Letting either tower just fall over would be much worse. Someone did the same analysis on the basement bomb as I did. Too bad no one can ever take credit for it. People would crucify them."

And that's it.
For a decade now I have been watching America go insane about the issue, seeing dark conspiracies in everything and everyone. Even close friends breathing fire at me when I try to bring up the subject and add in the missing historical context of the previous attempt."

After lurking on the 9/11 forums here for a month back in 2007 I decided that, it was far to volatile a subject, and too many people had too much personally invested in their own theories to consider my version.

My only hope now is that the subject has cooled off enough, for at least one person to consider my impression of the matter.

The End
David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Thats all well and good.. well thought out, well put together.. unfortunately, someone made billions because it was destroyed by a terrorist attack, not a "safety" mechanism. and thousands, if not millions have died because of it. and that doesn't explain NORADs epic fail. Though I will agree, it was probabbly explosives that brought them down.



haha.. btw, this be your 2nd post. First post. Though you don't seem to pose an opinion, so I'm just poking fun.

It can still be a tough debate at times but a lot more people are waking up to it. With millions dead around the world and a mountain of evidence pointing at an inside job something is going to have to change. Either we accept we live in a dog eat dog world and things fall apart or the concepts of valour and civility return to governance once more. If the discussion does get heated at times, well the war is still going on.

Originally posted by Myendica
haha.. btw, this be your 2nd post. First post. Though you don't seem to pose an opinion, so I'm just poking fun.

Whoa, you're right.
Thank you for keeping me honest.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I think the second plane hit higher up cause the pilot saw that the first tower hadn't fallen over.

In actuality, the second plane hit lower than the first plane. And it didn't even strike the middle of the tower like the first plane. It struck more off to the side missing the majority of the core, thus causing less structural damage to the south tower compared to the north tower:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6c140b194cb.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Then... when a tower falls I immediately think this.

"That's a controlled demolition.

Many people knew right at the moment the towers collapsed, that it was controlled. There was even one news anchor that said the destruction of the towers was planned and that it wasn't accidental.

Now, with all available evidence, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that three WTC buildings were brought down in a controlled fashion.


Thanks for posting your story.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I think the second plane hit higher up cause the pilot saw that the first tower hadn't fallen over.

In actuality, the second plane hit lower than the first plane. And it didn't even strike the middle of the tower like the first plane. It struck more off to the side missing the majority of the core, thus causing less structural damage to the south tower compared to the north tower:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6c140b194cb.gif[/atsimg]


Thanks for posting your story.

And thank you for the correction. It has been a long time, and I haven't really been able to discuss it with anyone. I'm not surprised that the details are getting mixed up in my memory. Hell, I can't even remember which corner of which tower the van bomb went off in.


David Grouchy

Why is it so hard for anyone to understand the pancake effect of the floors smashing down on each other with the building giving way underneath due to the sheer weight. OK, you all keep going on and on about how it looked like a controlled demolition - because that's all you have seen before. We haven't got any other footage of planes flying into skyscrapers to compare this incident with.

You would have a case if every other video of a plane flying into a skyscraper produced different results, but you don't. And from what I seen with my own eyes on that day - Planes flew into the WTC and it crumbled from the damage at the top due to the floors smashing down on each other.

Has it not occurred to people that the loud bangs that they heard *moments before* the buildings fell weren't bombs exploding but rather the floors up above smashing down on each other?

Give it a rest everyone - It's completely ridiculous to suggest a controlled demolition when we have footage of the planes crashing into the building. Not everything's a conspiracy - you freaks.

Killing 2 birds with one stone. You know it was part of possible scenarios for a long time (plane + skyscraper).

The controlled demolition would then be a matter of precaution more than a conspiration. And I could bet that insurers had something to do with that. It's clearly not something they would want to make public because in case of an emergency, there's no time to prepare a controlled demolition, and that would imply that the explosives were already in place. Try to explain that there are explosives all over some high buildings to prevent further collateral damage if their structural integrity were to pose an immediate risk to the surroundings.

Like casinos, insurers bet securely on the future using statistics at their advantage. Limiting the damage would also limits the cost, so some prerequisites would be required from the insurer before accepting a contract of that magnitude.

And I'm also sure that since then, insurance payments increased more than a little.

reply to post by routerboy


Pancake effect, I understand. But even then, it should have deviated a lot more. Of course, I saw the inclination of the top (both tower), but under the damaged sections it fell too straight and too fast. They were made to withstand this kind of impact, and using the official explanation (fire melted the beams), only the top part should have fell, not the entire thing.

reply to post by Vio1ion


They were made to withstand this impact were they?? So was there plenty of research done on flying a jet liner into the top of a skyscraper - so they could design it with these tests in mind? I'd like to see this research since you have said they were designed with this in mind?

reply to post by routerboy


They didn't fell right after impact. And you didn't answer the other aspects. And if I'm a freak, imagine what one with influence and money could do.

reply to post by Vio1ion


Exactly. The damaged floors burned and weakened. They then collapsed causing a domino effect on the other floors. - And I don't care how much money or "influence" you have.

reply to post by routerboy


Is there plenty of evidence of any prior 110 floor building collapse?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So you dont think causing severe structural damage to the corner of a building would be worse that striking the middle. Interesting. What about the angle of impact of the second jet that actually caused it to damage MORE floors through impact than the first jet?

reply to post by davidgrouchy


I was right with you, until the "controlled demolition" part was brought up.

Of course it was evident that they "hoped" to knock over a Tower....merely from the impact of the airplane. Looks as if the terrorists studied at the same "school of physics" that many 9/11 "truthers" went to, as well.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether the determination of the actual, physical sequence of events that led to the collapses was made beforehand.....I would think that was a "surprise bonus" to those who, at most, expected just the fire, damage and deaths from the impacts...as well as the lasting impression, the visible signs of the impacts, to be seen for many months afterwards.

Naturally, the idea of "CD" is nonsense.

And, especially with WTC 7....that one is used most often, and is the most illogical. (Since, if you bother to research into the way the area was cleared out, you will see that the many buildings nearby the two Twin Towers were demolished....razed completely, as part of the clean up at "Ground Zero". WTC 7 was going to be demolished, regardless. It just did everyone the favor, due to the damage it sustained, and its very unique construction design.....all three buildings were rather "special" that way, and ended up being their Achilles Heel of sorts.

Originally posted by routerboy
Why is it so hard for anyone to understand the pancake effect of the floors smashing down on each other with the building giving way underneath due to the sheer weight.

Why is it so hard for some to realize that the "pancake" theory goes out the window because it would have left the central core standing?

[equivalent rude comments right back]

Originally posted by Vio1ion
Killing 2 birds with one stone. You know it was part of possible scenarios for a long time (plane + skyscraper).

The controlled demolition would then be a matter of precaution more than a conspiration. And I could bet that insurers had something to do with that. It's clearly not something they would want to make public because in case of an emergency, there's no time to prepare a controlled demolition, and that would imply that the explosives were already in place. Try to explain that there are explosives all over some high buildings to prevent further collateral damage if their structural integrity were to pose an immediate risk to the surroundings.

Like casinos, insurers bet securely on the future using statistics at their advantage. Limiting the damage would also limits the cost, so some prerequisites would be required from the insurer before accepting a contract of that magnitude.

And I'm also sure that since then, insurance payments increased more than a little.

Are you suggesting that all skyscrapers have CD elements in place "in case" a plane happens to hit them!?! Really?

Or did I misunderstand you?

Originally posted by routerboy
Why is it so hard for anyone to understand the pancake effect of the floors smashing down on each other

Why is it so hard for anyone to do simple research and be the least bit knowledgeable on the subject they are commenting on?

From NIST:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers...

Source: NIST

Originally posted by routerboy
you all keep going on and on about how it looked like a controlled demolition

It didn't just look like a controlled demolition. There were ejections (consistent with controlled demolitions), there were flashes of light with popping or exploding sounds (consistent with controlled demolitions), there were timed/synchronous booms as both towers collapsed (consistent with controlled demolitions).

Now, if you can find one single fire-induced collapse that exhibits ejections, flashes, and timed booms, then we'll be all ears. But until then, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by routerboy
Has it not occurred to people that the loud bangs that they heard *moments before* the buildings fell weren't bombs exploding but rather the floors up above smashing down on each other?

Has it occurred to you that you're not going to hear a floor crashing 10-feet below into another at two miles away?

Originally posted by routerboy
They were made to withstand this impact were they??

Sure were:

The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings. The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure.

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.” As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.”

And from Appendix Q of the NIST report:

Port Authority documents indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964. While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the documents state that such a collision would result in localized damage only, and that it would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.

NIST Report, Appendix Q


And while NIST acknowledges that the fuel dispersion and resulting fires hadn't been considered in the Port Authority's 1964 analysis, the lead engineer John Skilling (of the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson) had the following to say regarding his firm's 1200-page analysis:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

The reason why the analysis was done by his firm, and another done by the Port Authority is because the World Trade Towers were to be the tallest in the world, and thus would be even more vulnerable to aircraft impact after the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building.

Originally posted by routerboy
I'd like to see this research since you have said they were designed with this in mind?

Neither analysis has been released to the public, however NIST must have some sort of proof of the Port Authority analysis to include those findings in their report.

Originally posted by routerboy
you freaks

Grow up.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Not every buildings, but it would be kind of logical to try to prevent one from falling sideways and causing more unnecessary damage and death. Any accident that would threaten the building to collapse.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Naturally, the idea of "CD" is nonsense.

Not "naturally". More like "ignorantly". More like "denial-ly". More like "unresearched-ly".

Originally posted by weedwhacker
very unique construction design.....all three buildings were rather "special" that way

It almost seems like you're trying to disseminate deliberate disinformation. Are you trying to say that the design of the towers was unique? Because (as I've pointed out numerous times) the tube-structure was not first used in the towers, and is the most common type of structure used in constructing super-tall skyscrapers since the 1960's.