No it's not "logical" to assume that. Do you have any expereience in buiding demolition ? Are you really suggesting that the WTC was pre-rigged with explosives ??

The Twin Towers fell down because a group of Islamic terrorists ctashed planes onto them. That's it, there's no more. Your standard anti-American theory is plain nonsense.

Dave may be an annoying reactionary troll, but he's spot on this time (apart from his the standard neocon "anti-American" bollox, natch).

Conspiracy theories are a waste of time. So-called "intelligence" agencies are really not that efficient, honestly.

They would be unable to carry out such an act without leaving the scene littered with government-issue trenchcoats bearing names, ranks and serial numbers (with apologies to Iain Banks).

Whether or not the Bushites KNEW about the terrorist attacks in advance and decided to do little or nowt about them is another matter entirely, however.

We now know that Roosevelt decided to "let" Pearl Harbour happen to justify his entry into war, after all...

I can't remember the building, but one of the large syscrapers (may have even been the WTC) was found to be structually unsound (i think high winds were a problem), the reinforcing took place secretly over night over a long period of time and was kept secret for a number of years, so large things can be done to tall buildings without public knowledge.

I don't believe for a second in the administration blowing the building up, but as Bush's dad's employers include Osama's brothers (check Carlyle), there are a lot of questions to ask!

PS: Those so called terrorists main cause is to free Saudi Arabia from US tyrany as far as they are concerned, not to bring the USA down.

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html

A few questions that remain unanswered...

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?

2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?

3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane?

4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?

5. Where was George H. W. Bush at the time of the attacks?

6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?

7. Where are the flight recorders?

8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?

9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?

11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?

12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?

13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?

14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?

15. Why was no plane seen at the Pentagon?

16. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?

17. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?

18. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?

19. When was the decision made to send the FEMA to New York?

20. Why did FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney tell Dan Rather he was in New York on Sept. 10?

21. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?

22. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?

23. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?

24. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?

25. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?

26. What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?

27. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the passenger lists?

28. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?

29. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed?

30. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?

31. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?

32. Which hijacker's passport was found in the WTC rubble? Who found it and what time?

33. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?

34. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?

35. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers? MOHAMMED ATTA

36. Did the Florida police provide information that Atta was searched because of 1)an expired Visa, 2) driving a car without a license, 3) because of an incident at Miami Airport?

37. Why did Atta leave his bag at the airport and the employees didn't put it on board?

38. Who found his bag? How can we be sure it it was his bag?

39. Why did Atta place a video "how to fly planes", a uniform and his last will into his bag, knowing that he would commit suicide?

40. Why did Atta leave his drivers license in a rental car?

41. When did Atta train on a flight simulator?

42. Did Atta leave the US while in training and then return?

43. Why did Atta decide to study at Opa Locka, a famous hub of 6 Navy training bases and includes government partners like U.S. Coast Guard Air Station, Police (Miami-Dade) Aviation Unit?

44. Why was Atta allowed to study since he was stopped by the police for driving without a license and also for violating his visa? THE BLACK BOXES AND CRASH VIDEO

45. Why were the Black Boxes never recovered ?

46. Why didn't the FBI release the air traffic controller's protocols?

47. Why did the FBI not release the Flight Data Recorder info?

48. Who video-recorded the first plane hitting the tower? Why did he disappear from the media? THE HIJACKERS

49. How did the FBI receive a tip from a passenger who boarded a different plane and reached his destination safely that he had a confrontation with two ME men at the Logan airport in Boston?

50. Who tipped the FBI to storm the Westin Hotel in Boston on September 12th?

51. Where did the photos of all 19 hijackers come from?

52. How were all hijackers identified just 2 days after the attack?

53. Why did all 19 names not appear on the passenger list 2 days after the hijacker list was released?

54. Why do none of the names appear on the passenger lists UA and AA gave to CNN?

55. How could the hijackers disable the defense systems?

56. Why did the FBI ignore Bin Laden's family, who left the United States without further investigation

57. What about the supposed hijackers who are still alive?

58. Was there a reason to change the list of the original 19 hijackers?

59. What happened to Ayub Ali Khan and Mohammed Jaweed Azmath, who have been in jail since September 2001, because of possession of box cutters on a train?Who gave the tip to arrest them?

60. Why did it take 4 months before Ramsi Binalschibhs name was mentioned, since he was a good friend of Mohammad Atta and lived in his apartment in Hamburg?

61. Why did it take 4 months until December 11 to charge Zacarias Moussaoui for the 9/11 attacks when his case was known worldwide for months, but not mentioned in the American media?

62. Whatever happened with Lotfi Raissi, who was arrested in UK for teaching the terrorist pilots?

63. What is the current status of the investigation of Mamoun Darkazanli Import-Export-Company in Hamburg and Al Taqwa Management Organisation in Lugano?

64. Why was Richard Reid able to enter the Paris airport twice and who paid for his hotel?

65. Who hired Zacarias Masspoui to learn how to fly passenger jets in the United States?

66. Why did the FBI or CIA fail to interrogate him between August and December 2001? BIN LADEN

67. Did the CIA monitor Bin Laden in 1998 with the help of 15 Afghan agents, paid $1,000/ month?

68. Where are these agents? Was Johnny "Mike" Spann one? Was John Walker Lindh one?

69. Is an Afghan agent a member of the ISI? Is an Afghan agent working for Bin Laden?

70. When was the first time Tenet mentioned the Al-Quaeda group to any member of the Senate?

71. Why did the Pentagon release a new video version or translation of the Bin Laden Home video?

72. Why it was released only 8 hours after translation by the German magazine MONITOR on December ?

73. Why were the four translators prior US-Government workers?

74. When was the Bin Laden Home Video found and who found it?

75. Who found the video if Northern Alliance and US troops had not yet arrived in Kandahar or Jahalabad?

76. Does the timestamp on the Bin Laden video indicate that it was found two weeks after it was produced?

77. Why was the public not informed who found the video and when?

78. Why according to MONITOR magazine, were the most controversial statements translated incorrectly?

79. Why was the video released?

80. Who gave the final decision to release it?

81. Why is the Bin Laden video of June 2001 in which he praised the attack, available on the Internet?

82. What about Bin Laden's statements on Al-Jazeera in June 2001 about the bombing of USS Cole, which are similar to the statements on the November 2001 home video?

83. Why did Bin Laden state in Umman Magazine in Sept. 2001, that he was not involved in the WTC?

84. Is Bin Laden still on the payroll of the CIA or ISI?

85. Did the Bin Laden Group Inc. help build ToraBora with the CIA?

86. What was the purpose of the meeting with General Pervez Musharraf in May 2001?

87. Why was a statement released that Al-Khalifa bin Laden, who is not the mother of Bin Laden, had a telephone call with Bin Laden on September 9, rather than Alia Ghanem, his mother? Why did Alia Ghanem say she did not believe he planned the attack?




According to the article, Mr. Romero:

'studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.'

His Institute:

'assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.'

The Institute is funded, at least in part, by grants from the Pentagon.

Van Romero reported that he had studied the videos of the WTC collapse and concluded that the towers were most likely destroyed by carefully placed demolition charges. He told the 'Journal':

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm




"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."

 http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm




"Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served."

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html



Or for an extensive amount of "conspiracy" evidence

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

The previous comment (and some before) are the writings of mad conspiracy lunatics!

To the shock, horror and astonishment of the viewing public, the twin towers at the WTC complex collapsed, uniformly... for no apparent reason, on live TV and engulfed Lower Manhattan in an airborne plume of dust and smoke. Yet, we are led to believe by Larry Silverstein that a last minute decision was taken to “pull” the Salomon Bros. building to “save lives” because it was burning out of control.

This means that demolition experts would have had to arrive at the scene promptly, in what was already a disaster area with minimal visibility and place explosives at regular intervals throughout this dangerous structure to detonate simultaneously in a controlled demolition, which went off without a hitch.

Unless Superman arrived, this is clearly an impossibility, besides... the destruction of building #7 on the afternoon of September 11th. was an impediment to the rescue services at Ground Zero and may have cost many more lives, not saved them. The building was not like “a torch” as I’ve seen it described, or in imminent danger of collapse.

A decision to “pull” ANY building in the vicinity at that time, would have been irresponsible and mindless, but it would also have to be planned well in advance. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon was supposed to be “a surprise” no-one, not even the Intelligence Services had wind of it, still... building #7, was rigged to blow?

WOW! You feel you can dismiss all the questions above as "the writings of mad conspiracy lunatics!" yet you believe the conspiracy theory put forward by the US govt. as to what happened on September 11th. I have yet to see any evidence that proves who was responsible (Bush telling me who doesn't prove anything) therefore any theory as to who did it is merely a conspiracy theory. Did you also believe the US/UK Govt.s conspiracy theory regarding Iraqs non-existant W.M.D. ? If you did then welcome to the world of the "mad conspiracy lunatics!" Now join us in our quest for TRUTH.

Look, it's very, very simple. The US government didn't blow up that building, because they don't need excuses like that, because they're a bunch of fucking assholes. Did Clinton need some terrorist act as a pretense to blow up Kosovo? They were already planning to invade Afghanistan, and no doubt would have found some excuse to invade Iraq as well. 9/11 just made things a lot easier for them Whatever. They would have done the same shit anyways.

How most of the theories seem to work is that they assume that the US gov't did it, and then they assume that things that happened before 9/11 "prove" this. In other words, come up with the theory first, then look for proof. No doubt there is some fishy shit around 9/11, but as yet, I find these theories to be laughable, even in comparison to the official US government version. Logical deduction does not entail deciding on your conclusion first, then looking for evidence to back it up. It's the other way around.

peace out.

Thanks, Socrates, you make a good point: starting out with an assumption
makes one biased.

Let me state my bias: in 1980, I was told about a plan for a Bush dynasty.
The idea was to get GHWB in the White House, where he could "use his CIA
network get things done quickly without telling anyone," and where he could
"arrange to become President." You may recall that Reagan escaped being shot
by a Bush family friend for only three months after the inauguration, and that
many people claimed that the October Surprise was a Bush ploy. You can also
see how this news would have shaped my bias.

My source went on to say that once he was President, GHWB could appoint
Supreme Court Justices for life, opening the door for one of his three most
eligible sons when they were older. This person was eighteen years old in
1980, and I realized that if she could figure this out, then so could people
with the power to make it happen.

In 1986, I followed the news about Iran-Contra and decided GHWB needed one
of his own in office to seal the records. In 1997, I read about Bojinka.
That year, I read a review of Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" book that
mused about the eerie coincidence that his idea of funding Islamist terror
might dovetail rather nicely with his plan for grabbing the world's oil
before anyone else could use it to rebuild and start another Cold War.
You'll agree that averting another Cold War is an appealing goal for all
concerned.

Within the next year, I read that U.S. intelligence analysts were concerned
that foreign-born terrorists training at U.S. military bases planned to hijack
airliners and crash them into symbolic targets in the U.S. including the WTC
and Pentagon. The targets were symbolic; clearly, a terrorist bent on maximum
damage would hit a nuclear plant instead.

I wondered why intelligence analysts were talking to the press instead of
rounding up the people they'd identified. After all, if you know what someone's
thinking, and you know roughly where they are, then you must know their identity.
As it happens, Clinton had ordered a sweep of flight schools in 1996 when he
learned that not everyone involved with Bojinka had been caught. However, if
you believe the official story, the perps weren't in the U.S. yet at that time.
This is no defense of Clinton; he could have jailed the Bush family en masse
had he not been complicit in Iran-Contra. However, it was only in 1999, when I
found out that GWB was running, that I recalled my friend's 1980 comments about
how his dad could "get things done quickly without telling anyone" if Reagan
won, how keeping the Iran-Contra perps out of prison would require a friendly
opposition, and how U.S. intelligence analysts had told the press they were
concerned about foreign-born terrorists training at secure U.S. military bases
and planning to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and Pentagon.

On July 2, 1999, I said on tape that if I were GWB, I would use my dad's CIA
network to get things done quickly without telling anyone, steal the election,
and then, as the dirt leaked out, create a distraction by allowing the already-
published plans to attack the WTC and Pentagon about a year later.

Then it hit me: if the targets were symbolic, perhaps the dates would be too.

I tried, on tape, to find numbers having deep emotional resonance for a majority
of U.S. citizens, regardless of age, race, education or income. There were only
two. Innumeracy is rampant in the U.S., but everyone was talking about the new
millenium. There was some confusion at first about which year would be the first,
but history will see 2001 as the first year of the millenium. If I were right,
it would also be a year of devastating scandal about the election.

You connect the last dot; tell me the only other number I could think of that
had symbolic resonance for all Americans.

Then tell me I'm biased.

Then show me I was wrong.

I'd give a lot to be wrong on this.

 http://www.sirdave.com

Best,
--

Socrates:
"The US government didn't blow up that building, because they don't
need excuses like that... Did Clinton need some terrorist act as a
pretense to blow up Kosovo?"


Your point is a good one: since the Gulf of Tonkin hoax,
the U.S. has never needed much of a pretext to invade anywhere.

But as Brzezinski pointed out, "it may become more difficult
to fashion a consensus... except in the circumstance of a truly
massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

 http://www.tribalmessenger.org/t-fema/external-threat.htm

Now look back at 1996, when the Department of Homeland Security
was first proposed. Remember that it failed, even in the wake
of the OKC bombing. Even 9/11 was not enough, alone, to serve
as a pretext for the American Stasi. This is what it took to
justify that complete abrogation of the vow to protect and defend
the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

 http://www.911review.org/Wiki/AnthraxAttacks.shtml

'October 2, 2001 (B): The "anti-terrorism" Patriot Act is introduced
in Congress, but is not well received by all. [Patriot Act, 10/2/01]
One day later, Senate Majority Leader and future anthrax target Tom
Daschle (D) says he doubts the Senate will take up this bill in the
one week timetable the administration wants. As head of the Senate,
Daschle has great power to block or slow passage of the bill. Attorney
General Ashcroft accuses Senate Democrats of dragging their feet.
[Washington Post, 10/3/01] On October 4, Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman and future anthrax target Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush
administration of reneging on an agreement on the anti-terrorist bill.
Leahy is in a key position to block or slow the bill. Some warn that
"lawmakers are overlooking constitutional flaws in their rush to meet
the administration's timetable." Two days later, Ashcroft complains about
"the rather slow pace 'over his request for law enforcement powers' Hard
feelings remain." [Washington Post, 10/4/01] The anthrax letters to Daschle
and Leahy are sent out on October 9 and difficulties in passing the Act
continue (see October 9, 2001).'

Does that answer your question about why some people think 9/11 et al.
were used as a pretext for sudden events planned long in advance?

Does it explain why millions of people want an explanation from Larry
Silverstein about why he suggested "pulling" the building?

Do you think these clips are self-explanatory?

 http://YouthfulIndiscretions.com

Best,
-- SD, perp

The wtc 1) collapsed perfectly to the ground, the displacement of heat would not be uniform in distribution through the entire structure from jet fuel ignition (theoretically possible for it to collapse but an expert pilot would have had to hit the wtc in the perfect place , ...imposssible by a novice) , hence the building should have fallen to one particular side, but it did not.
2) good engineers throughout the usa and the world know that this was impossible.
3) dont concentrate on this , but look at the bilderberg group, opium wars , etc .
4) Protein coat of the anthrax found is exactly specific to the procedures used at usamird in maryland.
5) unesco , find out who they are!
6)history is from the viewpoint of the victor, history is taught now as a list of facts to memorize without analysis.
7)Dont take for granted your freedom, read the farrwell adress of george washington and realize your rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Silverstein says very clearly in the PBS documentary that "the decision was made to pull it, and we watched the building collapse." It sounds like they detonated the building, but why would he admit to this in a PBS documentary? Did anybody ask him to clarify? I'm still researching this. The strongest evidence of compilicity comes from the mouth of George Bush. He says that he watched the first WTC collision on television at 9 AM 9/11/01, but it wasn't on TV. Perhaps he was mistaken, but he repeats this story again. Take a look at  http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml. Try to keep an open mind. I am not convinced of anything yet, but I am suspicious.