Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[glitchrock-buddha]

why wouldnt it be possible that the terrorists set those in the building to ensure it goes all the way down?

RonC

The world trade center was a pretty well secured building. The terrorist network that highjacked those airplanes could not possibly have planted explosives throughout those buildings. It's not like one bomb, it's a series of strategically placed explosives, timed to go off at precise increments. That's the scary thing is that if explosives are proven, then it was put there under approval of people with access to buildings, or those running perhaps, say... a test evacuation drill days before... That's why explosives really takes the wind out of the theory that there was no inside involvement. Hence why NIST would absolutely not want to entertain that possibility.

[Emissary]

why wouldnt it be possible that the terrorists set those in the building to ensure it goes all the way down?

RonC

The world trade center was a pretty well secured building. The terrorist network that highjacked those airplanes could not possibly have planted explosives throughout those buildings. It's not like one bomb, it's a series of strategically placed explosives, timed to go off at precise increments. That's the scary thing is that if explosives are proven, then it was put there under approval of people with access to buildings, or those running perhaps, say... a test evacuation drill days before... That's why explosives really takes the wind out of the theory that there was no inside involvement. Hence why NIST would absolutely not want to entertain that possibility.

Its indeed interesing that some floors and lift shafts of the world trade centre were off limits from time to time leading up to the attack. The Work was being done by the very same people who were contracted to clear the majority of the mess up afterwards too. Hmmmm

[smutek]

Please read this. It explains the logistics and the entire timeline. All the discrepancies and the reason behind the whole thing. The guy was a narcotics detective who became aware that the cia was drug running and so started up a site called from the wilderness.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crossing-Rubico ... 283&sr=8-1

And the reason you havent heard of it is because all the conspiracy guys (alex jones etc) think the guy is a cia plant and so refuse to deal with him, so he is totally off radar. Anybody that alex jones doesn't like has my immediate attention

Thanks for the recommendation, just ordered a copy used from Amazon for $5

Looking forward to reading it.

[ethios4]

@ smutek - you make really good points. I'm undecided on this matter, btw. One of the interesting points in the article the OP linked is that the team installing the explosives wouldn't necessarily have known they were explosives when they were putting them in. It's not necessarily like they are strapping sticks of dynamite to the concrete. But then, wouldn't those workers get suspicious about the work they did after the towers came down?

Also, as far as finding agents who can be reliably complicit in such an atrocity a) military people are broken down and trained from the ground up not to question the chain of command, and b) people rarely take part in things they know are evil, but if you can convince them that what they are doing is actually good, then they will actually defend their actions rather than be susceptible to guilt.

It's fascinating to think about....I wish someone would make a movie depicting as realistically as possible the whole conspiracy theory....yea right, that's never gonna happen!

[Machinesworking]

I really don't see the relevance of explosives. If there was, there would be almost zero chance of being able to determine legally who put the explosives in, and a ton of experts will deny the existence. So how does it help to get more attention towards investigation?

I'm sympathetic towards people who see a connection between 911 and the US government, but I fail to see the point in the investigation. There was more evidence linking Jack Ruby to the mafia and therefore to some cover up in JFKs assignation than there is linking the US government to 911, and 45 years later people still have made no link to anything besides Oswald. If 911 was an inside job, the people who did covered their tracks to the degree that we the public will never know for certain, so it just becomes fear mongering IMO.

Here's my opinion on what happened. Some people in the government were warned that suspicious men were taking pilot lessons (documented ), those people, or their higher ups did nothing, (again documented). Some people in the government thought it would be a good idea if the american public got a good scare to mobilize them patriotically (documented), so they allowed it to happen. Even going as far as orchestrating a military exercise the very day they were told the attack was to take place.
My guess is they had no idea that the buildings would crumble the way they did, they sent up jets for the planes headed for the white house and the pentagon, and let regular military deal with the twin tower planes, which was botched to a degree they didn't expect. This 'they' could have been as little as 5 or 6 people. The decisions would be carried out by people bellow them who wouldn't piece together anything odd, as all the higher ups were 'doing' was responding to the threat in a seemingly hap hazard way.

No huge conspiracy, no easy target, just power hungry people wanting to consolidate power, and using islamic extremists to do so. No easy way to get any real information, because like all successful executives, these guys know how to seem blissfully unaware when it's convenient. The justification is simple, that islamic extremism must be stopped, never mind that it's been a reaction to the constant intervention in their affairs for the last 90 years, never mind the oil resources and money these people have invested in oil. To me, this is more scary, that the consolidation of power the human race has allowed brings about these sort of chess moves, in almost every war.

Conspiracy be dammed, it's obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all that some people knew something was up, and allowed it to happen, to further their own goals. Trying to prove that is like chasing ghosts and shadows. Hopefully if we're lucky someone gets a conscience on their death bed.

[Emissary]

@ smutek - you make really good points. I'm undecided on this matter, btw. One of the interesting points in the article the OP linked is that the team installing the explosives wouldn't necessarily have known they were explosives when they were putting them in. It's not necessarily like they are strapping sticks of dynamite to the concrete. But then, wouldn't those workers get suspicious about the work they did after the towers came down?

Also, as far as finding agents who can be reliably complicit in such an atrocity a) military people are broken down and trained from the ground up not to question the chain of command, and b) people rarely take part in things they know are evil, but if you can convince them that what they are doing is actually good, then they will actually defend their actions rather than be susceptible to guilt.

It's fascinating to think about....I wish someone would make a movie depicting as realistically as possible the whole conspiracy theory....yea right, that's never gonna happen!

Now your thinking like a proper nut job

Can you imagine being one of the people who had installed any kind of explosive material in the WTC. Even if they had no knowledge of what they were doing, if anyone found out they would be complicit in the man slaughter of thousands. Thats more than is needed for most to keep their mouths shut. And anyway these people would have been told countless times that it was nothing to do with the stuff they installed, why would someone willingly accept they had just caused that amount of death, better to shrug it off and believe what you manager tells you.

[ethios4]

@MW - the theory you describe seems most likely to me of all, including the official story. In fact, there was a 911 truth conference at the university here and I got to talk with one of the heads of the 911 truth movement, and what she said she believed happened is pretty much what you described as well. Still, evidence of explosives in the building is interesting to me, even if it seems pretty unlikely.

[aqua_tek]

bullshit.

Will Smith did it

[Machinesworking]

@MW - the theory you describe seems most likely to me of all, including the official story. In fact, there was a 911 truth conference at the university here and I got to talk with one of the heads of the 911 truth movement, and what she said she believed happened is pretty much what you described as well. Still, evidence of explosives in the building is interesting to me, even if it seems pretty unlikely.

See to a certain degree, I think it's subterfuge. All anti globalist movements, left or right, are colored with the conspiracy theory nut job tag, and the people who exploit human weakness are ignored.

For instance, fuck thermite! I want a time line on when exactly the joint military exercise on 9/11 was planned. I would like to see if it was after or before the papers outlining a possible terrorist attempt to gain pilot licenses were handed over. Things like this, that bother me, that I never heard and answer about. How did they 'pull' the third building? If it just fell, why did the owner say the decision was made to pull it, as in demo it?
Fuck all that, I want to know what on earth is keeping people afraid of questioning our continued military presence in the middle east? regardless of whether we orchestrated the reasons for being there or not?

Anyway it really is ghosts and shadows. Those ghost shows on TV have more of a chance of finding out something real than we do.

[bodhi71]

Suppose for once that Zietgiest was 100% on the money. Without a shadow of a doubt. What would we as citizens do about it?




Nothing.




We have no use for revolution, we have become docile.
Not one of us is willing to surrender any creature comfort, and way of life for any kind of truth.
Truth is what is fed to us from an early age...... TV.
What's the point?
Those few who really do care know how powerless they are.
1984 was a beautiful portrayal of what already was going on since WW2.
Maybe not quite to the letter, but it has come quite close.


So my assumption is....WTC probably was a conspiracy, it felt false as it went down(no pun intended),
And it was clear we were going to war. OIL.

Federal Reserve.... I had no clue it wasn't part of the Gov.
It sickens me, to know that yes it's possible to carve out a living, but I cannot believe nothing can be done to create our own Gov. reserve and remove World banking.


so if you or you or me don't make a stand what's the point?

[Emissary]

bullshit.

Will Smith did it

Thats really wrong man....but i cant help but let out a little

what is it. Tradegy + time = humour.....

[noiserot]

Interviews with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan

Steven Jones mp3:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibilit ... es0309.mp3

Kevin Ryan mp3:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibilit ... an0309.mp3

[mikemc]

I really don't see the relevance of explosives. If there was, there would be almost zero chance of being able to determine legally who put the explosives in, and a ton of experts will deny the existence. So how does it help to get more attention towards investigation?

I'm sympathetic towards people who see a connection between 911 and the US government, but I fail to see the point in the investigation. There was more evidence linking Jack Ruby to the mafia and therefore to some cover up in JFKs assignation than there is linking the US government to 911, and 45 years later people still have made no link to anything besides Oswald. If 911 was an inside job, the people who did covered their tracks to the degree that we the public will never know for certain, so it just becomes fear mongering IMO.

Here's my opinion on what happened. Some people in the government were warned that suspicious men were taking pilot lessons (documented ), those people, or their higher ups did nothing, (again documented)

...

I think the rest is a little off the rails, but up to that point good...

One of those people who had been involved in the information chain left the government, to go into private security, he was named O'Neill and was killed in the 9/11 attack, because the security he was involved in was for the World Trade Center.

This means that the people who were supposed to do something about protecting the WTC had the information that there was a real potential for another attack. The previous attack had caused considerable damage, more than had been previously thought, and they were going to need to plan a contingency in the case that such an attack occurred, which contingency would not be a federal one, but at best a municipal/private business one.

Part of the contingency would be to deal with the worst case scenario that such an attack would be successful, and that the resulting damage would cause the buildings to become a significant public hazard. If the buildings dropped like felled trees, which was the intent of the earlier failed attack, they would wipe out scores of buildings. In a worst case scenario, then, the falling of the buildings would need to be controlled.

Given this realization, the municipal/private co-owners of the Trade Centers placed explosives in the buildings to enact a controlled demolition in the case of an attack. This contingency was executed, but because of poor communication resulted in the deaths of many firemen-- a really bad mistake.

So that mistake was not admitted, because in the final high level 'municipal level' analysis the contingency was successful, and the impact on the surrounding population was minimized. The buildings could hold nearly 50 thousand people, the fatailies were minimized.

HOWever, there is another consideration. My understanding is that the WTC complex was not sustainable in a business sense. It had been 'subsidized' for the most part by the Port Authority until months before the attacks, the buildings had expensive subsystems due to their size, and it was well understood (and ultimately demonstrated) that putting out a significant fire could be a very difficult business. To have renovated those buildings after the amount of damage that had been done... very expensive. Cheaper to build them over, really-- this is the high level 'private industry' analysis.

And that is the best explanation for those explosives.

[edit] Understand, from the point of view of the contingency planners, the people who were in floors above the plane strikes and had no egress were written off-- no probability of survival. But this combined with the loss of the firemen... that such a contingency could exist would spark a huge uproar and gigantic lawsuits.

[ThrowAway]

The 911 truthers that I came into contact were dumb asses. When I confronted them over there "proof" of the use of explosions "that jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel" they just repeated it over and over like mind-fucked little kiddies. 1 Ive bent steel bars by hand with a fraction of the heat generated by the jet fuel. No need to melt it. 2 concrete explodes when heated to the temps that were generated. The reason I refuse to believe this was an inside job like whats being presented is because there is no need... total fail. I believe its possible there were other kinds of aid given but I really dont see the need for it either. They worked the system end of story.

[mikemc]

The 911 truthers that I came into contact were dumb asses. When I confronted them over there "proof" of the use of explosions "that jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel" they just repeated it over and over like mind-fucked little kiddies. 1 Ive bent steel bars by hand with a fraction of the heat generated by the jet fuel.

I saw a deparment store that had burnt, that had steel beams in the roof, and the beams drooped like wilted stems. There was no jet fuel involved there.

But drooping over like a wilted stem is not what these buildings did.