nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

planting explosives in a building occupied by people would be WRONG.

Under regular circumstances it is. Keeping dangerous things where
people may get in a harm's way is wrong. For example, keeping guns,
matches, knives or pills in homes where kids can reach them is wrong.
Driving a car with gasoline in the tank is wrong because the gasoline
may catch fire in an accident and ETC, ETC, ETC.

What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

No attack -no demolition. Small fire? Maybe. Fires take place in many
places with lots of explosives and fuel, say, aircraft carriers, other
men-of-war. Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!

If I were in the group of
mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person to
say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just done their job FOR them!"

Don't let him find out, don't let them use it. That's why you are
supposed to keep silent. Whistle-blowing is not always a good thing.

See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together and
screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into that
action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.

Making a big noise may be detrimental to other people's interests
namely health and the life itself because bad guys may find out.

Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger.

Again, under normal conditions. You see people entering and leaving
their homes through the doors, under normal conditions. In an
emergency they may jump out of windows (No offence to Bill Gates).
What was going on inside and below the surface level?

What we all watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after
being struck by a gigantic airliner. You may require more of a
cause, but the WTC didn't.

After, but not immediately. Maybe it really didn't. I tend to think it
didn't. And I don't require more of a cause. Namely I'm so far in no
need of a huge conspiracy 'at the government level, Reichstag fire
style thing, with Black Hawk remote control technology' and all that.
I want some facts or what seems to be facts explained without
resorting to UFO-style invaders and Great-Great World Conspiracies.
If the so-called 'video footage' and seismic data' are crap then this
theory collapses like the two towers. It is not just needed. Bring the
razor here! Take it from Occam he can't use it anyway 'cause he's
dead.

Again, this theory is not what I cling to desperately, it's rather a
hypothesis to explain the footage and seismic data IF (once again, IF)
they are not false.

Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based on
maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
building.

Yes it does (Thank goodnes, not thousands). I'm not sure of dozens and
how many of them. And the building is not always occupied. And yes,
purporsely installing and not only purporsely, but skillfully. Add
construction engineers and maybe computer modelling specialists. The
data may be aquired through many ways including under the cover of
investigating the 1993 attack.

Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds of
firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
involved to be content to do this, forever.

Assisting the murder? No. It's perpetrators who did the murder. OK if
we discuss among other things the plane hijackng let's recall other
hijacking. I've already written that prior to 911 hijacking a plane
was hijacked in Ankara and it left three dead: a stewardess, a
passenger and one of the hijackers.

But the surviving hijackers could say they'd killed nobody! Their
hands were clean and they had meant no harm. The Saudi anti-terrorist
squad shot the victims! Yes, incidently, but the Saudis are to blame!
Would you agree? I doubt. The perpetratore as well as instigatots,
orginisers and financer are guilty, not those who tried to prevent
damage and loss of life.

No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the room,

I agree, it consists of them almost by 100%. Say if the buildings were
designed and built so that they were just to collapse the way the did,
malodionolike, without any charges, then this theory again is not
needed. There could be many 'ifs' that could make it just unnecessary.
But if placing charges could prevent greater damage it can be
considered.

I've found on my computer an image, a satellite shot of the site after
the event. I thought I'd deleted it and now it's been found. I've just
looked at it again. Looks like the towers were really surrounded by
other, lower towers and other buildings, pretty close. Some buildings
that are very close to the site show big holes in their roofs. Those a
bit more distant look to be in a better shape. I don't know if these
were within reach of the towers' fragments in case the towers fell
uncontrollably aside. Maybe yes, maybe not. Try some 3-d modelling
with your computer or with some solid things like mathcboxes or
something like that. Keep the distances and hights in proportion to
the real ones. When looking at this I recall the 'dominoes theory',
this time of steel and concrete. One dominoe falls and it goes on.

dozens of people working in secrecy

Secrecy is needed. Not sure of many dozens.

- if they didn't weaken the beams,

Imagine there are several of you. You'are supposed to blow a bridge
with several rucksacks of explosives. And the bridge is heavily
guarded. And you are supposed to do it without weakended beams or or
predrilled holes. And to do it quickly.

Why such limitations? Very simple. It's war and you with the guys are
commandoes parachuted to do it. Mission impossible? Maybe yes, maybe
not. It depends, depends on many things, planning included. But such
things have been done with success.

there is no guarantee that the whole
idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass job
- something the demos guys DON'T do.

If you want guarantees look for someone who can give them to you.
Nobody to be seen? This happens for many things, not only terrorist
attacks. Again, it could have been concluded, that though there were
no such positive guarantees you want, negative guarantees, namely
greater damage could be predicted, if nothing was done.

Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day leak
out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things 6)
anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that to
plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest commercial
centers is ok. Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above. Depends on
circumstances. It may form no corpus delicti. Using it to kill people
will.

GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up with
such an idea.
You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting explosives
under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other large
emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If I
was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address the
false claim you have made against them.

I don't want to offend anybody. My apologies if I have.

It was the terrorist attack that caused all the deaths here. The
firefighters didn't miss, they were 'people inside' and near the
buildings. Maybe someone blundered. Maybe it was because they were
just supposed to be where their duty told them to be without knowing
that this time it all was in vain.

Could the firemen be saved? How if the building started to collapse?

I once more state solemnly and even pompously I do no cling to this
theory. And I did not mean this particular company. But if the seismic
data and videos and other evidence are true (which is not a fact) then
they have to be explained. You just cannot overlook it.

{Legalistic considerations snipped as irrelevant here}

Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

Again, could they be saved?

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control?

'The truth sometimes looks quite implausable' (c) some French writer.

Remind me not to have you around in an emergency.

I hope none will come.

If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts be
hidden?

Watch out. The bad guys are continuing their business.

You know what kind of button it is.
Yes, I do.
Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

I hope you have no button like 'kill Cheney' one.

The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
directly into Cheney's face.

Don't say you don't understand the difference between pie-throwing and
a murder of someone you may dislike very much. It's just fundamentally
different and it is different not because of an electric chair or what
else is used for punishing that.

Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

OK, your wife was just not there. A big difference indeed. She'd gone
shopping (jogging, paying visits), anything.
I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
that the building 'might' topple to the side.

After the event you saw happened they were unsavable. They could be
given 1-2-3 seconds of life inside the building. The price of that
could be lives of those outside. You might then live up with the
knowledge you could save someone and did't.

=====CONCLUSION==========

You've rammed so many proofs into my theory, your arguments are
burning bright like jet fuel so the shaky building of my theory is
about to collapse like the towers.

Let's stop at this. To continue we need an input from outside, from
other people who know better, who know the facts.

You say you've seen many demolitions. Maybe you still have contacts
with these people. Maybe it is all just the waste of time. But maybe
you'll find a chance to steal a couple of minutes from them and ask
about things we've discussed.

If they say the idea of pre-planting explosives has no value and will
cause more harm than prevent, or it was just unapplicable in this
particular situation or or anything else - believe them.

And if they recommend you not to waste time on cranky theories by some
cranky guys - follow theit recommendations.


Best regards

VV