Can anyone tell me otherwise, when i explain it like this? Please! There is logic in chaos?

I think it was in 94 the first World Trade Tower attack happened. Anyhow, obviously it was attacked before 911.

I was thinking what if that worked the first time, the building would have toppled sideways, and cause I love to make dominos fall, I would imagine the city of NY would topple like dominos, one building after another.

Thank God it didn't. But, could there be some executive order or mandate somewhere. As in I believe the gov would be smart enough to realize what I did, and try to put some safeguards. Maybe strip certain beams with thermite, just in case another attack happened, however unlikely, we could control the fall trajectory better.

Maybe it's nothing more than a conspiracy of not wanting to publicly admit you were the President who had to make that choice, same as knocking down a plane with our military jets. Maybe it did fall in a controlled demolition, but the original reason the controls were in place was because the first bombing scarred them to death of a building/domino situation in a major city.

It could just be a safeguard, and poor President Bush had to make a tough call.

If the reason was a legit preemptive measure, agreed upon by pentagon, whitehouse, and building owners. Would it make you feel better to find out that maybe a lot more lives were saved doing a controlled demolition. Kind of like a Hiroshima situation, by that I mean just a situation that arises in the cold evolution of man. The best laid plans...

So jist summary and an index.

Bush controlled demo towers.

But the protocols were in place to do a controlled demolition in case of another attack, perhaps even first attacked weakend foundation such that a toppling could have been more likely.

And the only conspiracy is that the executive order was given in secret, and no President would ever divulge that he had to sacrifice American lives to save other American lives.

Wasn't the Jews, CIA, or a corporate conspiracy. Just a mishap of events and preventive measures.

Just a mishap of events and preemptive measures.

ADDIN: It could only be certain buildings classified as high risk for attack that could have this safety feature.

Also it could just be trade center, but also might be a safety measure in case of a small nuke placed in there to collapse the building to seal radiation. Maybe they knew something we didn't. I could imagine needing a building to quickly collapse if a terrorist used a small nuke in the basement. Maybe the whole attack was to use planes to draw everyone to the towers for rescue and media, then detonate a nuke. Maybe some high res satellites with secret technology spotted nuke, and they collapse building to neutralize it.

Could just be a bad chess game that now looks like an epic draw to the point of conspiracy about who did it, maybe it was just random moves that led to this one ending.

reply to post by Chesster


Check out this thread of mine from a few years ago.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And to answer your question.... It would make sense to.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Oh man I bow then to the original thread.

I just read it, seems interesting also, although you def went a little more in deph as mine is an essay and your has pictures !

THanks for response and a share. I really don't want to believe the gov or anyone in it could be that evil.

Although, the whole Michael Aquino thing bugs me, but I like the guy. By he way I would love to work for an intelligence agency. Why do they make it so hard to apply! Nobody would ever suspect a pothead.

reply to post by Chesster


Im always reminded of a video of a failed demo videos you can find on you tube



even trained demo people screw up which is why its amazing the buildings fell the way they did un planed...



theres tons of these to watch.

You know, i was never a believer in the controlled demo thing... now that you bring it up and I am looking up more and more FAILED control demos, it really is amazing that two buildings hit with two separate objects of different mass and speed (Im sure the planes didn't weight the exact same) hit at different locations would fall so perfectly... damn it Im convincing myself on this...

I think I got it. The first one was pulled down to avoid this domino effect. The second one was pulled down to make the collapse of the first one more credible. And then, they just said "WTF ?!?" and pulled down the WTC7 just for the fun of it. They have only stopped at the Pentagon because is flat, like a huge cowpat. Knowing already how totally bonkers the so called "elites" are, I am ready to believe this one as well. At least I shall give it a try...

WTC7

That building was pulled down hours later right?

I assume it was evacuated?

From what I remember it had the second largest CIA office outside langley or whatever.

Hmm, the area is devastated, about to be flooded with civilian rescue force, and holding the second largest known stash of CIA secrets?

Already rigged with thermite in case of a terrorist attack, or maybe setup that day, thats why it didn't go down until the evening.

CIA would quickly terminate the building, it's technology, and computers if the building was extremely comprimised, logic could be used to prove there is no reason to leave that building standing. National security.

reply to post by Chesster


As a genuine certified smarty pants I felt the need to reply.

Interesting theory but its just that, a theory.

I find it highly unlikely that TPTB would feel the need to cover this up, they have freely admitted they will shoot down a passenger plane with civilians on board to save further deaths or destruction so why wouldnt an office building be ok? (granted it was a large and iconic building with people inside)
I also have trouble believing they would allow all the cops and firemen to die if it was something as innocent as a preventative measure.

I find it much more plausible that it was a false flag op to justify a war in Afghanistan so the oil pipeline that the Taliban were blocking could be built.

reply to post by Chesster


I have thought about this.
You are suggesting that maybe all of these giant buildings have charges built in to control their fall in case of something like this? Well it wouldn't be true because it would make it way to easy to take down by a terrorist getting control of detonating the charges. Also, if it were the case it would have been way premature to pull them in the WTC. They really looked sturdy when they fell suddenly, you know? Who would make that call after such a short time burning.

Even if one of the top sections broke completely off it was never going to start a domino effect and could not have caused nearly as much destruction/casualties as collapsing the entire tower.

My 2c on the logic.

reply to post by Chesster


So the all the buildings are pre-rigged with explosives as a "safegarud" and then you push the button when there are still thousands in the building as a "precaution".

This is silliness sqaured.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Chesster

 

So the all the buildings are pre-rigged with explosives as a "safegarud" and then you push the button when there are still thousands in the building as a "precaution".

This is silliness sqaured.

Well not really, this same logic is applied to the airforce given an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner filled with civilians.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Well not really, this same logic is applied to the airforce given an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner filled with civilians.

Huh? Blowing up the building before everyone gets out is not the same as shooting down an aircraft before it crashes and maybe kills hundreds. If there were an option to shooting down the airliner after the passengers got out it would be the same thing.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Well not really, this same logic is applied to the airforce given an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner filled with civilians.

Huh? Blowing up the building before everyone gets out is not the same as shooting down an aircraft before it crashes and maybe kills hundreds. If there were an option to shooting down the airliner after the passengers got out it would be the same thing.

Last I heard they got everyone out of WTC 7 before it was demolished after 5pm on 9/11.

A scenario like this is more real than you can imagine.

" .......engineered for safety reasons or just happened".

The Wtc was a TOP SECRET location. I dont think any rookie fireman would of had access to most of the offices due to the intelligence contained within. Self destruct is only option.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Last I heard they got everyone out of WTC 7 before it was demolished after 5pm on 9/11.

Sorry, but I think you meant, "before it collapsed". Honest mistake I guess. So why didn't they let everyone get out of the towers as a "precaution" before they "precautionarily" initiated the explosives and then "precautionarily" killed thousands and destroyed all the other buildings and businesses? Very strange "precautionary" steps, they seem to only result in more death and destruction.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Last I heard they got everyone out of WTC 7 before it was demolished after 5pm on 9/11.

So why didn't they let everyone get out of the towers as a "precaution" before they "precautionarily" initiated the explosives and then "precautionarily" killed thousands and destroyed all the other buildings and businesses?

Ummm, probably because they were hit by planes. This is not hard....

Actually,

One could also assume the the files contained at the two towers were just as top secret as the ones in wtc7, probably a ton of secret tech, secret files, and national security things they didnt want the whole crowd of rescuers to see. Sounds cruel but in a disaster moment sometimes you have guard the secrets more than the people.

I am so glad ore people see it this way.

God bless America, I really don't think it's a conspiracy anymore yey!

Just who makes the decision to push the button? Our government can’t even agree on this year’s budget. Remember the stop gap spending bills? And you think they could agree on giving person ‘X’ the button? The politicians would want to make a committee to make the decision. That way they can wash any guilt off their hands.
How do you determine that the building is going to collapse in 2 hours vs the firemen think they will have the fires under control in 1 hour?

Somehow people on here think that power like that would or could be given to one person. But that’s just not the way it works.
People on here equate the decision to shoot down of a passenger jet with the demolition of a skyscraper. But the differences is orders of magnitude. The people on the jet were dead already. TPTB knew it. The only question was where the plane would come down. Would it be in a field or the side a of a building.

Also people on here think that WTC would act the same way as these much shorter and rigid buildings that fell sideways during demolition. WTC was not rigid enough to topple over like a drunk sailor.
Build a tall structure out of playing cards on a table. Then lift one edge of the table and watch what happens to the cards.

reply to post by samkent


Well a decision like this is a one man show, probably the presidents. So just think of Bush's psychological priofile? Is he the type of President opr person that would?

I think Bush would shoot down a plane and bring down a building for the greater good.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Ummm, probably because they were hit by planes. This is not hard....

So the building is struck by a plane on the 80th floor so, for safety sake, they blow the whole thing up while there are still 1000's of people still in the building and on the ground? Huh? So where's the safety? Sorry, this is getting too stupid. For the sake of safety you're going to pre-rig a building with explosives and let them sit for maybe decades, in the tallest building in one of the most densley populated areas on earth. Yeah, sounds safe to me!