nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

"Planting", i.e., installed where they will do the most damage and 'where the
kids can get to them' is wrong.

Oops, maybe it's a wrong word. English is still foreign to me. Let's
call it putting, placing whichever. As to the 'most damage' - no. They
must be put where they can do what they are supposed to do: to cut the
steel in different parts SIMULTANEOUSLY or otherwise in the way that
prevents the building or its huge parts from falling aside. And
prevents kids or the bad guys from getting hold of them.

gas in a motor vehicle is a rather frickin' huge stretch from planting
explosives in an occupied building, by an order of magnitude.

It is. Analogies help illustrate, but often fail to explain. I take
this one back.

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

What "small fire" do you mean?

What small fire do YOU mean in your previous post of 2004-01-23
10:40:35 PST? I think we both mean a fire that is limited enough in
scale to put the whole building including its internal structure in
danger of collapse. If the big fire that really started could be
extuinguished or limited in scale before a certain moment it could all
end differently.

To make your analogy fit, those men-of-war would need torpedos placed at the
waterline by the builders, on the assumption that one day in the future, the
ship will need to be scuttled.

Usually no. But if there is a great probability of the least event
then maybe they need. For example if in 1993 there was a situation
that might lead to such a need. There are other ways to scuttle the
ships however.

Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!
Not in occupied skyscrapers they don't.

Maybe they used not to. MAybe not.

I'd love to know the method you would use to determine which people would keep
this secret, and which ones would have some reservation that ultimately would
trip up the entire game.

Nothing special. The same methods that are used when choosing spies,
lawyers, attorneys, BTW doctors, Army commanders etc. Reliability,
ability to work on the 'need-to-know' basis. Not boasters. Not drunks.
Not drug-addicts. Decent, rliable people. If I believe you no secret
can be kept because someone will talk outside.

ONE building inspector or janitor that was not wholly
behind the project and you'd have the mother of all grand juries, lawsuits, and
that company would be torn apart.

Of course such risks exist. But if you were a junitor and found some
still box with wires inside what then? There are lots of ducts, boxes
and other things in all buildings. And lots of wires. It can all be
hidden.

"We're wiring the place with explosives, for their own good." - that makes
sense to you? And what if terrorists do strike, but instead of doing minor
damage, such as in 1993, they trip the demos? Congrats, here's your letter of
appreciation from Al qaida.

That is another reason to keep it secret. Access to the demos must be
prevented. Access to the control system that initiates them is
prevented through many ways including codes. They may guess that
something like that is here but where exactly and how it is controlled
- they shouldn't know.

That's a guess, sir. What we _know_ happened was the largest "conventional"
bombs ever used against a structure were effectively driven into the buildings
at high speed.

Your theory requires two groups of conspirators, one blue team, the other red,
that both combine to accomplish what the red team intended all along.

No. The red team always wants more damage. The other team's goals are
the opposite.

It doesn't surprise me that there are anomalies during this event - its not as
if we'd seen similar things on this scale to provide data to draw from, so
things like safes crashing through weakened floors or clusters of fire
extinguishers exploding in the fire, or any number of other things that would
be going "boom" in a conflagration like this should also be considered by your
theory.

That's right as I see now. It could be a can of solvent/paint/varnish.
It could be a bottle of hair spray. It could be a bottle of French
parfume. It could be fuel vapors catching fire. Even without all this
during fires flames burst out of windows when glass is broken. Only
seismic data remains then.

I think its more a matter of interpretation and understanding than faked data.

Yes. If certain peaks of a seismogram can be explained rationally, of
course.

False, VV. The towers were absolutely never empty; they lived and breathed
24/7 until the moment they died.

But not that everybody saw everything. If you bring things in boxes
marked 'A new super-booper computers' say for the payment system that
was there others cannot find out what was inside the boxes.

...all agreeing to place thousands of people in danger that were not directly
threatened at that time?

They were threatened all the time. After 1993 probably that was
understood very clearly.

Then lets suggest that all airliners should be wired with explosives to keep
them from falling into the hands of terrorists? That fits your model, but not
reality.

Reality? True the planes are not wired this way. But shooting a
hijacked plane was considered. With passengers, BTW. To prevent
greater damage, BTW. Because it was believed the passengers and the
crews were not savable, BTW. How did the fourth plane fall?

Another option is to equip the planes with remote control systems. If
a plane is hijacked the terrorists cannot control it and it will be
controlled from the ground.

But at the time you suggest that explosives were planted by the blue team,
there was no red team attack in progress.

What is progress in this case? Recruiting, training, planning,
organising not included? It never stops. It is going on right now. And
you seldom know the time, the place and the manner of yet another
'progress' to take place.

I agree, such as if two enormous airliners drilled the structures.
Then space aliens and Martin Bormann must also be considered, because these are
every bit as likely as the owners of the WTC colluding with building
inspectors, fire marshals, and demolition experts to plant explosives in an
occupied building.

Who owned the WTC? I believe it was some public or municipal entity
who hires people you mention, except Bormann. And where is the razor?
Did Ockam take it from you to prevent Martin Bormann from coming to
the scene? Martin Bormann or Heinrich Mueller deserve a separate
theory.

Dominos are solid and transfer their falling energy to their neighbors in
manners wholly different than skyscrapers - there have been collapses in large
buildings in other areas of the world that did not lead to the type of damage
you are describing.

They are solid and there are many differencies with towers. Yet parts
of the towers could fall upon other towers and destroy them. What
about 3-d modelling I wrote about?

Its not one building inspector and fire marshal, but a small army of
them that worked on the structure post-1993 attack.

AFAIK some of them really found strange things but it never went
further. It didn't become part of the investigation. All steel sold as
scrap. No foreign rescue teams were admitted as it often takes place
after disasters of such a scale.

Then, the
owners/stockholders would also have to be willing participants, leading also to
insurance companies

Again, who were the owners? And these insurance companies were given a
huge financial assistance by the government almost immediately. The
airlines were given it too, BTW.

and it branches out further: all participants in directly
placing people in danger from explosives planted not by the bad guys, but by
the "good guys".

Bad guys did that. Period.

So now you are switching theories to make it a military operation? Sir, I
don't have time to deal with every permutation you can dream up - besides, I
watched the events unfold.

It all was NOT a peace operation. I just wanted to explain that some
stages of a peacetime demo job namely weakening the beams could and
must be omitted in this case.

Ok, now lets suggest that there is no bridge, no commandos, no guards, just two
large airliners, drilling the WTC. Why go off on tangents when we WATCHED this
happen?

Don't go off if seismic data are false. Keep strait.

Apples and airliners, sir. Of course commando attacks have occurred. The fact
that we know of them points out how well such operations can be kept a secret,

But one of them could talk it out!

even when only commandos are involved. Now, toss in the FBI, stockholders,
fire marshals, ETC ETC ETC and tell me how long your "bridge attack" could be
kept a secret.

That would be the controlled demo guys - the only folks on the planet with the
corporate knowledge and experience at bringing down structures of this size.
Except they won't do it when there are innocent lives sitting in offices above
their demo charges! Geez.


That assumes that this mythical group knew that one day, the WTC would be so
damaged that a collapse was inevitable AND it would fall to the side, requiring
the demolition. Gi-frickin-gantic assumption there buddy.

Not would but could. And has nearly been once.

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above.

Those events occurred DURING a hostage event. Did the Saudis start shooting
into the a plane years before the hostage situation occurred?? GEEZ

No. But they have been preparing for that for years. And did the
charges in question came off before 'the event' or about one hour
later?

NOT true - planting explosives in an occupied building IS a felony; attempting
to overwhelm hijackers IS NOT.

Yes, exactly - and the people planting your mythical demo charges would have to
know that, just as in 1993, hundreds of FF would be on scene, in mortal danger
specifically from those non-existant charges.

What if the FF were not in the know? Someone blundered.


After many more such events, perhaps we would understand all of the vagaries of
such terrible things. Until then, consider that the buildings were horribly
damaged by terrorists in hijacked airliners, trying to bring them down.

They were. And that where yhe differences might begin. The buildings
were doomed. The question is whether other towers with maybe hundreds
people inside were.

or what, sacrificed?

What way of avoiding can you offer?

I take it you dont know any firefighters. I grew up
playing at Company 7 in Phoenix, living with Engineer Loren Long as my
surrogate dad. I can picture him rushing into the WTC, but what I cannot/ will
not accept is the mental image of -dozens- of people agreeing to plant
explosives in an occupied building, "JUST IN CASE".

A highly probable one.

So we need to mine MORE skyscrapers, "just in case"???

A single tower in a desert - no. The towers like the WTC - maybe.
Though other ways of preventing it look better.

shaking my head No. I dont murder people.

We're discussing murdoroues things here. Cheney and the pie are
irrelevant here.

The pie must be thrown.

Out of this discussion? Yes.

whatever. You are the person that mentioned murdering our vice president
- all I did was toss an imaginary pie.

No need for him here, but who knows?

As long as we insert the massive assumption that such damage on the upper
floors would cause a building to become unstable at its base, allowing it to
fall sideways.

I do not mean a domino-style fall. If there were no or little risk of
events taking place this way all theory falls in flame of shame.

You say you've seen many demolitions.

we call this new invention "t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n'. One of the things that Fox
loves to show is old, disused UNOCCUPIED structures such as forums and
delapidated apartment buildings being brought down. Its a part of modern life.
You have never seen such an event...?

Live -no. On TV-yes. It's the cheapest way of demolition.

BR

VV