Self-Destruct theory

H

harpoonflyby

The Force is Strong With This One
By using evidence we are all familiar with I would like to propose a counter theory - the WTC building collapses prove that they were in fact DESIGNED to collapse. Forget planes, pods, 4000 deg kerosene fires. Forget bombs too (but not completely). These structures collapsed perfectly and consistently, being such immense structures, laws of probability would demand any demolition scenario, even one of the highest order of ingenuity and orchestration, could not have been re-produced three times in such a short amount of time. I propose that the WTC since time of inception was intended to collapse.

Explosive charges were embedded in some fashion into the core structure of the buildings. This conclusion is derived solely on the fact that WTC7 came down catastrophically. Therefore with all variables equal, that is, marginal intensity fires, marginal structural damage, it logically points to any WTC collapse as not because of planes and fuel (albeit allegedly fuel was involved in WTC7 but not even the same kind of fuel, and even so under entirely unique circumstances). It is far too difficult to envision the demolition could have been planned and implmented to such a public place, under a single administration of government- which keep in mind had just begun. So how could a hush and rush job not leave behind any trail of evidence, go completely unnoticed by anyone? Someone somewhere would have blown the whistle, probably out of greed for money.

It wasn't a rush job. Forget just a moment about demolition teams sneaking into the building and planting explosives, mysterious evacuations and fire drills in the days or weeks before 9/11, this stuff is too simple. In the 30-35 years before 9/11, when WTC was being planned and architected, where were we? We were in the middle of the Cold War, a war comprised of nothing more than delusions and tensions. Defence agencies of the government back then, you know the types that gave us NORAD a secret bunker in a mountain, implemented a self-destruct mechanism for the WTC buildings as a contigency scenario in the event of communist invasion. Possibly more buildings are involved. This was done to preclude the enemy from setting up any useful command and control centers from a likely location - the center of American business, commerce, gov't intelligence. In other words the WTC buildings were designed, or covertly adapted, so they could be brought down at will, thus demolishing any useful intelligence or resources. Watch any of the Indiana Jones movies? Since wars in ancient times peoples have boobytrapped their lairs in the event of being overrun, to prevent your enemies from using your own fortress or weapons against you, but also to destroy treasure or secrets.

We can only speculate as to the how, what, why of the initiation of the self-desctruct. Ask yourselves however, what is easier to believe, this "late-in-the game" scenario to collapse buildings as part of a single, giant, fully calculated false-flag operation, such as one most truth movements support, or, sort of an "opportunistic" false-flag operation born out of serious miscalculation, and subsequently covered up by equal parts of truth and lie?
 
Are we supposed to think that explosives planted decades ago would not have deteriorated in all that passage of time?

There was a power down at the WTC the weekend prior to 9-11. All security locks and cameras disabled. Men in worksuits going in and out of the buildings - free access. This was reported to us by a guy named Scott Forbes who was employed at Fiduciary Trust, which was located in the WTC complex.
He was directed to disable his company's computer systems on that weekend, which he says is why he was NOT there on the morning of 9-11.

How do you suppose that explosives/wiring embedded so long ago would not have deteriorated/become unstable over such a long period of time? In that scenario, they could have conceivably gone off at any time, and not all on the same day within hours of one another.

This theory you present appears rather unlikely to me.
Building 7 was a classic demolition.
It collapsed in approx 6.6 seconds.
It collapsed within hours of the north and south towers, both of which were taken out within a short time of one another. The other two demolitions were not "traditional" demolitions.
In my opinion, each collapse was "catastrophic", not just building 7.
If anything, building 7 was the least catastrophic of all three, since there was no loss of life associated with that demolition.
The same cannot be said of the North and South towers. Also, tall buildings like that would be more inclined to topple, as opposed to collapsing straight into their own footprints in virtual freefall time, encountering nothing but air resistance.


I've seen this theory presented before, but I'm not buying it.
Yes, it took time for the buildings to be wired.
But it sounds rather unlikely to me that they were designed to collapse this way from the time they were constructed or years and years and years into the past.
There would very likely have been some deterioration of the explosive apparatus over that much time, don't you think?

Laws of probability would demand that this scenario could not be reproduced three times in one day?
This scenario WAS reproduced three times in one day, although I believe building 7 was supposed to come down much earlier than it did.
As improbable as you would view it, the scenario DID play out three times in one day with three different skyscrapers, all controlled by the same group, on the same site, within hours of one another, for the first time ever in history.

This is my perspective.

Lisa
 
Thank you, you raise some good points. May I clarify, I do not disagree that the twin towers came down catastrophically, no question. My point rather was WTC7 did as well, which is my attempt to remind us that planes and fuel do not factor into any equation whatsoever. Which I believe most agree on. Also may I clarify a "catastophic collapse" is technical-speak, which simply means catastophic in terms of total structural failure, as in, not merely structural damage, not a partial failure, and not a segmented failure as in section by section. So I am not using "catastophic" in the more subjective way to imply loss of life or resources, which clearly would be an understatement. A catastrophic structural collapse is only possible through demolition, there is simply no other explanation to how all the steel cores of the building managed to become spaghetti at the same EXACT time.

If it were possible through a fire to demolish steel buildings then companies, like Controlled Demolition Inc., would have no business plan if someone could just hire some thugs to go in there and pour fuel and light it.

Laws of probability would work against all three buildings coming down in precisely the same way, without anyone intermediate noticing or coming forward about evidence of implementation in the "hush-rush" demolition scenario. This is all I am saying.

I was living in Seattle at the time of the Kingdome implosion. It took literally months to prepare the building to cause it to implode inwards on itself. They had to drill 6000 holes in the relatively small 110,000 ton concrete structure Kingdome which stood only 250 foot high, fill the holes with dynamite, and wire it up. To determine how much dynamite and how many holes they had to do test explosions on pieces of the concrete in the building to determine it's density. Get this - they had to cut through steel sections, to enable it to come down completely. Consider all of this - cutting through the steel cores could not have been done on WTC 1, 2, and 7, in the amount of time alloted by the "powerdown" theory. Certainly cutting through steel, drilling holes in concrete, would make noise and dust that somebody would have noticed? At least one person, in the middle of downtown Manhatten?

One might suggest that instead of doing any "planning", they just used excessive explosive and placement at WTC to ensure total collapse. However, if that were the case wouldn't the effect of that become utterly obvious to the public?

As to the stability and aging characteristics of wiring and explosives over decades I admit I do not know. How did the self-desctruct planners ensure it wouldn't go off too soon? Certainly there are circuits in the wiring which prevent them all going off at the same time to demolish a building by accident. So at most a single node could go off but not the whole thing. Even with that perhaps the type of explosive used remain inert until a detonation element is introduced, and this could be automated.

Therefore we cannot continue to buy into these pieces of the short-term demoliton scenario. Insted it must have been in place a long time. And if it was not a demolition, then we had better wake up Einstein because we have discovered some new laws in physics
 
The explosive effect was obvious to many people on 9-11. There are numerous reports from survivors, first responders, firefighters, correspondents reported the explosions. People saw, felt and heard them.
The mainstream media has suppressed these statements, but the 9-11 researchers have been talking about them for a long time.

Someone with expertise in the area of demolitions once emailed me outlining why this theory you present is implausible and unlikely - and I will try to find the email because he argued against this scenario very thoroughly. Assuming I haven't deleted it or filed it away someplace, I will look for it and hopefully find it.

Do you factor in the distinct possibility that those people involved in planting explosive devices might not be alive anymore to tell the tale?
This may have been what happened to the people at the Pentagon, too.
What better way to ensure that nobody talks than to get rid of any potential "leak" during the actual commission of the crime.
Not saying this is what happened, because I don't know.
But, people don't necessarily come forward and give up the ghost all the time.
If the price is right, people can be bought off; if the incentive is strong enough or if there is just the "right" amount of pressure applied in just the right measure, many people might just shut the hell up for their own personal safety or "best interests" or to ensure the safety of their loved ones.
The fear factor works very well, too. Threats can work like magic charms.
Look at the USS Liberty coverup. Survivors of that Israeli crime on a U.S. Navy ship in 1967 kept their mouths shut for YEARS, because of personal threats made to them by higher ups in the military.
Now, these men were traumatized by the actual events of that day, the murder of their shipmates, the destruction of their ship, the lack of support from their own government, the suppression of the story in the media, and the subsequent threats against them if they ever opened their mouths.
They were threatened with imprisonment, electroshock, court marshal, being plopped into some mental institution, and the usual smear tactics. They were separated from one another so they couldn't talk amongst themselves, they were scattered to different locations. The U.S. military covered it up, the White House covered it up, the survivors, out of fear, also helped cover it up for a long time. The media went along with the cover-up and then subsequently forgot about it. But they were part of the coverup, too - and still are, to this day, since they won't report the truth about it. Politicians to this day refuse to address it. The fight to expose the war crimes of June 8, 1967 still ensues to this day. And, unless something changes, this truth may likely die with the remaining survivors, unless people like us keep it alive.

So, what did the LIBERTY crew survivors do for a long time, with all of this pressure being applied to them?
They kept their mouths shut.
It was only in later years, they started to speak out, one by one.

People can be made to keep quiet. It happens all the time, every day.
One way to ensure silence is to get rid of the involved individuals.
But there are other ways too.
So, assuming there are complicit individuals involved with placing the explosives still walking amongst us, how likely do you think it would be for any of them to just "come forward"?

Look at what they would have to face.
If those people who were involved in placing the explosives are full-fledged psychopaths or contaminated by psychos, would they "leak" the info? If they are intelligence people, would they necessarily just "leak"?
And that's if any of those people are still around.

The public experienced a major trauma on 9-11. And then, they were TOLD what to think and how to interpret what they saw, felt observed and experienced. Those who tried to report things that didn't fit within the "official version" were marginalized and subsequently ignored. Look at William Rodriguez' testimony to the Whitewash Commission.
I've talked to people whose benefits and pensions were threatened and it is obvious that the entities behind 9-11 have no value for human life.
Not too many people want to jump up and place their heads on a chopping block with a very sharp blade hanging over their head.

There are firefighters who know more than they have publicly admitted, which is why I have spent significant amounts of time trying to reach out to them and make them understand that they need to tell whatever they know. I was told by one retired firefighter that the firemen are afraid that they would not have the support of the public and they have a keen sense of the evil that is behind 9-11, that the entities involved have no problem wasting thousands of people "just like that".
In other words, this fireman was saying, they're "afraid".

Fear is a very succesful device used to keep people quiet.
So is money.

Lisa
 
Lisa, when I suggest excessive explosives being placed in lieu of planning a demolition, I mean EXCESSIVE. As in obvious overkill. Yes, in video we can see what appears to be explosive effects during collapse, but honestly they aren't fully apparent as such. I am talking about that amount which would ensure total collapse without planning would result in an outward explosion, not downward. Use of too many explosives would have scattered the building rather than dropped it, resulting in far more damage to surrounding areas, possibly demolishing the remaining WTC tower and surrounding buildings simultaneously.

How does a hush-rush scenario consider the second tower not toppling as a result from the overuse of explosives in the first tower due to a lack of preparation? How does a hush-rush scenario deal with the use of potentially too few explosives which do not result in building collapse required to hide evidence of itself?
 
Who's saying it was rushed?
I'm saying I am not buying that the buildings were constructed with embedded explosives.

I'm not sure I even get your questions.

"How does a hush-rush scenario consider the second tower not toppling as a result from the overuse of explosives in the first tower due to a lack of preparation? How does a hush-rush scenario deal with the use of potentially too few explosives which do not result in building collapse required to hide evidence of itself?"

Point is, there were explosives used. Now, is it vitally necessary to focus upon when exactly they were placed five years after the events?
I seriously doubt that will ever be proved, unless something drastically changes.
If this is the aspect you are focusing on, that's cool by me.
I just don't see it as a road that has led us anywhere - and we could go round and round speculating and debating minutiae till the end of time.
The same endless theorizing has been going on for five years, regarding galvanic corrosion, regarding the pod, planes, no-planes, TV fakery, etc...regarding every single aspect of 9-11, ad nauseum.

It's all well and good if this is where your focus lies, but it is not where my focus lies anymore.
I think it's a dead end unless and until we get some new information emerging for everybody to examine.

Lisa
 
Lisa said:
It's all well and good if this is where your focus lies, but it is not where my focus lies anymore.
I think it's a dead end unless and until we get some new information emerging for everybody to examine.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly the point. To concentrate on what is clear and evident. Suppose you do otherwise. What will happen? Someone will take just your (harpoonflyby) hypothesis. Attack it as having no factual support, and this way put a shadow on the WHOLE argument. This is exactly what "they" are doing. You - harpoonflyby - are simply helping them. Knowingly or unknowingly - does not really matter. The effect is the same. Don't you see that this is "their" method? Here, we are looking for the truth. And truth must be supported by real data. You have one idea. Someone may have another idea. Ideas are cheap. Data, facts, removing possibly planted pseudo-data, removing speculations with no factual support. Drawing highly probable conclusions based on the totality of available data from different angles, rejecting hypotheses that become questionable, when new data appear - that is the only way towards the truth.
 
Thank you for the comments. I admit I do not shed any new light on the event. I only offer a "counter-theory" to the defacto theory. The defacto theory is simply a counter argument to the official story. If I can point out that the theory we are using has serious flaws in it, that are counterproductive to us, is that not useful? If our presentation appears contrived to even us, how is it going to convince anybody else? I realize that some are tired or nauseated by discussing it further, but presentation is everything
 
It's not enough to point it out, you have to provide data to qualify your theory.
The case for controlled demolition stands on its own two feet using science and math.
It also uses the government's own words against it.
If there were some legitimate legal venue where this case could be fairly presented and a compelling legal authority in place to hold suspected parties accountable, this case could have been prosecuted successfully years ago.

We've been told by a very skilled attorney (Lionel, who is on WOR 710 AM out of NYC) that the direct examination we present in our book, 9-11 on Trial, is a textbook perfect direct examination.
If the legitimate legal avenues were in place, and we had some means of getting this baby into court for a fair trial, we'd nail their butts to the wall - and they know it.

Tail-chasing based upon speculation is not going to get us anywhere.
It hasn't gotten us anywhere for 5 years.
Theory has to be backed up with reliable data to be of merit.
Focusing on peripherals is not going to get us anyplace.
As far as I'm concerned, unless and until we see some new data to support your theory, it remains a peripheral, unresolved matter and NOT the crux issue on the table.

Which theory are you referring to when you say "the theory we are using has serious flaws in it"?
There are lots of "theories" out there.
Straw-man theories, limited hangouts, red herrings, peripheral issues, you-name-it.
The controlled demolition research stands up because it uses physics and math and because the information is not inconsistent with the facts.

There is data to support this theory.
Where is the data to support your theory?

Chasing unsupported peripheral theories till the cows come home is more counterproductive to the truth effort, in my opinion.

You yourself say that you have nothing new to add, just another unsupported theory.
This makes me think you have no data to back it up.
In that case, this is just more speculation, which is good for passing the time, but little else.

Lisa
 
My evidence is the same as the defacto theory. Let's not attack our own evidence. I believe it is okay to draw an alternate conclusion to evidence, thus my "counter-theory". My conclusion in bullet form:

- Defacto theory does not permit enough time to implement demolition. The powerdown itself, while it may have happened, the reason for it as you have concluded cannot be true as I have already proven with the time, noise and mess required to prepare a demolition.
- Defacto theory implicates the current administration as inventing everything, when it could not be true. That is, assuming there is even such a concept as a "current" administration (in which case we're all screwed)
- Defacto theory assumes the buildings were not pre-wired. Since there is absoultely no-evidence for it being wired under any time period at all, mine or yours, and since the buildings collapsed as they did as evidenced by video and ellapsed time, it leaves us to accept they had to come pre-wired, or we will both be forced to agree it truly was not a demolition. Offer me a new time period with evidence for it, perhaps during asbestos removal, but as such I cannot accept yours.
 
harpoonflyby said:
My evidence is the same as the defacto theory. Let's not attack our own evidence. I believe it is okay to draw an alternate conclusion to evidence, thus my "counter-theory". My conclusion in bullet form:

- Defacto theory does not permit enough time to implement demolition. The powerdown itself, while it may have happened, the reason for it as you have concluded cannot be true as I have already proven with the time, noise and mess required to prepare a demolition.
- Defacto theory implicates the current administration as inventing everything, when it could not be true. That is, assuming there is even such a concept as a "current" administration (in which case we're all screwed)
- Defacto theory assumes the buildings were not pre-wired. Since there is absoultely no-evidence for it being wired under any time period at all, mine or yours, and since the buildings collapsed as they did as evidenced by video and ellapsed time, it leaves us to accept they had to come pre-wired, or we will both be forced to agree it truly was not a demolition. Offer me a new time period with evidence for it, perhaps during asbestos removal, but as such I cannot accept yours.
Click to expand...
You are spouting nonsense. You offer no data - you offer no proof - you are making statements of 'fact', which, in fact ,are purely statements of opinion. In short, you are creating noise.
 
I apologize if I have contributed noise. That wasn't my intent. Information regarding time and preparations for demolitions can be found:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/domeday.shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom21.shtml

Thanks
 
Harpoonflyby said: "My evidence is the same as the defacto theory. Let's not attack our own evidence. I believe it is okay to draw an alternate conclusion to evidence, thus my "counter-theory".


Lisa: I don't see anybody "attacking" anything. Looks around - nope, nobody attacking.
Are you seeing things that aren't there?


Harpoonflyby says: My conclusion in bullet form:

- Defacto theory does not permit enough time to implement demolition. The powerdown itself, while it may have happened, the reason for it as you have concluded cannot be true as I have already proven with the time, noise and mess required to prepare a demolition.

Lisa: No specific timeframe has been asserted by me regarding WHEN the explosives were placed. Furthermore, I did not give a "reason for it", as I am not in a position to know the "reason" for it.
I repeated here what was told to us by the employee at Fiduciary Trust, which we subsequently published in an article for inclusion in a book, which you are more then welcome to read.

Are you now assuming I said they placed the explosives during the powerdown? I did NOT say that.
I also don't see the merit in your first bullet, nor do I see that you've proven anything thus far.

Harpoonflyby said: "Defacto theory implicates the current administration as inventing everything, when it could not be true. That is, assuming there is even such a concept as a "current" administration (in which case we're all screwed)"

Lisa: See, this is where you are incorrect again. Granted, we are screwed. BUT I said, there are multiple theories and the one you describe above (current administration inventing everything) is a LIHOP theory.
We do NOT subscribe to the whole "Bush-Cheney did it" theory. That "theory" comes from the Libby Lib Lihoppers who peddle the tiresome "incompetence, negligence" mantra.
We (at WING TV) do NOT peddle that mantra, or the whole "Bush-Cheney" did it crap. 9-11 was bigger and broader and involved more than this false right-left paradigm crapola certain gatekeepers are pushing.
I suggest you take up your bullets with the gatekeepers over at 911truth.org, the nest of LIHOP....:-)

Lisa: We know 9-11 was broader in scope and involved more than just the current administration. I told you, there are lots of "theories" out there. Don't lump all of them together under one umbrella, because there are distinct variations and differences, and those are important to be aware of. 9-11 was NOT a LIHOP event, IMO.
It was deliberate, intentional, strategic and long-planned. It happened on purpose. It was orchestrated by Israel-firsters within the U.S. government and also zionist-Israeli elements over in Israel. It involved layers of players. I do not think Bush-Cheney were "ultimately" the masterminds of 9-11, not even remotely.
So, you're wrong on that bullet, too. Again, I point you toward the LIHOP Nest.

Harpoonflyby says: "Defacto theory assumes the buildings were not pre-wired. Since there is absoultely no-evidence for it being wired under any time period at all, mine or yours, and since the buildings collapsed as they did as evidenced by video and ellapsed time, it leaves us to accept they had to come pre-wired, or we will both be forced to agree it truly was not a demolition. Offer me a new time period with evidence for it, perhaps during asbestos removal, but as such I cannot accept yours."

Lisa: Let's try this again. We do not assume anything. We research, we ask questions, we examine all available data, we scrutinize the official story, and we gather together evidence. We survey the scene. We examine all the players and those individuals, organizations, corporations and agencies linked to them. we research the available technology which possibly helped facilitate the implementation of the crime. We see which information is not inconsistent with the facts. This is excruciatingly painstaking work, work that has taken 5 years and the efforts of many diligent persons. We have made the case for controlled demolition in 9-11 on Trial. This information is a compilation of the work done by hardcore 9-11 researchers over the last few years.
You are more than welcome to read it. SOTT has spent extensive amounts of time researching 9-11 as well, and produced phenomenal material on this subject. Avail yourself.

Lisa: Moreover, I don't feel particularly compelled or inclined to regurgitate the material in a book for you at length here on this forum. There are plenty of shows/interviews, materials you can listen to for yourself on this subject, if you don't care to read the short book cited above, or the follow-up volume, 9-11 Evil, or the material published by SOTT, or others.

Lisa: I still do not see data to support your theory, and since it is YOU who is pushing this theory without the necessary data to qualify it, then I respectfully suggest you stop trying to argue these bullets until you get yourself some data. Comprende?

Seems to me like all you're doing is trying to muddy the water.
In fact, it seems to me that this is precisely what you're doing.

You still do not account for the likely deterioration/degradation of embedded explosives over so lengthy a time as you're suggesting. We're talking multiple decades.

You said: "or we will both be forced to agree it truly was not a demolition. "

You still think it is even remotely a possibility that there was no controlled demolition?
Yet, you're supposedly using the same data as I am?
We do not have to prove WHEN the buildings were wired to prove the case for controlled demolition.

Other than an act of God or bizarre natural disaster, there is no way these buildings could have physically come down the way they did in the time they did unless it was from controlled demolitions.

There is no data linking the collapses to an act of God on the morning of 9-11.
There is no data linking the collapses to a bizarre natural disaster on the morning of 9-11.

The twin towers and building 7 were wired with explosive charges and brought down via controlled demolitions.

Nice attempt at word acrobatics, though.
Now I know what a harpoon flyby is.

Lisa
 
Harpoonflyby - take a minute to go to this thread and then watch the video to which it refers

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3308

It provides some interesting insight on the time it would take to set up a demolition for building 7 with many people doing the work - it might provide a different perspective for you.
 
Lisa, thanks for the explanation of your position on LIHOP, I did not understand this was your position. I am actually referring mostly to stuff presented in Loose Change 2, and in 'Confronting the Evidence'. Forgive me, if I am still coming up to speed on everything that has been presented out there, which you are without question well versed on. I have been reading much of what SOTT has presented in addition to Rense.com (i know, i know). I agree with you there isn't an umbrella theory, and I also fully agree with you that the responsible parties involved here are far wider than we can probably ever conceive.

So perhaps my counter-theory is mis-directed, it had no clear audience. Please do not accuse me of trying to muddy the waters, I am merely offering an idea up for examination based on what i've read. Which I can see may not be an appropriate thing to do.

anart - thanks for that thread, i will check it out. And try to keep my peripheral ideas to myself ;) Much respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom