This sounds reasonable to me, you build some frikkin high tower and someone asks how to bring it down when it is needed and demands some kind of protocol in place.

The people on the top floors could not be rescued, the fires could not be put out quickly, there was a possibility that the towers could be partly crushed and there would not be any way to restore them.

The protocol was activated and the towers were brought down using a controlled demolition. Knowing the public would not accept such decision, N.I.S.T was told to come up with a theory that would blame the collapse on the fires and weakened structure.

Are you serious? Do you think that the basement was kept full of explosives for such a possibility or that someone rushed out and bought some and planted them as soon as the planes hit?

As usual these looney theories make no sense at all.

UG, explosives are not needed to cut through steel.

The protocol was activated and the towers were brought down using a controlled demolition.

dem·o·li·on]1. [/b]The act or process of wrecking or destroying, especially destruction by explosives.

What was used - a chainsaw?

Read my reply again.

I say it might be possible that a plan was in place when building those frikkin high towers that demanded a plan to bring them down in case of some calamity that required them to activate the protocol.

Can you read and understand?

As usual these looney theories make no sense at all.

I can read fine, but it still makes no sense.

Then please explain why N.I.S.T had to increase the speed of the planes in order to justify a collapse.

The passport thing is a bit strange but not impossible when looking at all the paper stuff that survived the crash of the twin towers, (will post a picture later).

The N.I.S.T report raises a few questions.

The one (If I remember well) is one of the things on my mind is that the building would collapse (in their computer model) if the speed of the plane was raised to 540 Miles and hour (please don't attack me on the right number as it has been some time I read through the report). The Massachusetts institute of technology calculated the speed much lower.

The Russian guy raises an interesting question to me, were there or not plans in place to demolish these building in case of some calamity?

This sounds reasonable to me, you build some frikkin high tower and someone asks how to bring it down when it is needed and demands some kind of protocol in place.

The people on the top floors could not be rescued, the fires could not be put out quickly, there was a possibility that the towers could be partly crushed and there would not be any way to restore them.

The protocol was activated and the towers were brought down using a controlled demolition. Knowing the public would not accept such decision, N.I.S.T was told to come up with a theory that would blame the collapse on the fires and weakened structure.

The Nukulaa theory I do not really buy, but a plan in place to do a controlled demolition in case needed does make more sense to me and could explain why these towers went down.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. The people on the top floors were being cooked alive, that's why they were jumping out the windows. Helicopters couldn't land on the roofs due not only to the heat and the rush of hot air rising. The buildings would have had to be demolished anyway due to the structural damage caused by the nuclear detonation in the basement, er, I mean planes.

Buildings are built with demolition plans. I don't however believe that they had all these explosives installed inside the towers for some future date when they needed to take them down. Wiring one for demolition would have taken a lot more time than they had that morning and I don't believe that the explosives were put there upon contruction 30 years prior. Of course, I could be wrong.

So we agree the buildings had to be destroyed anyway after the plane attacks.

You say building are build including demolition plans, do you have any proof of that?

So we agree the buildings had to be destroyed anyway after the plane attacks.

You say building are build including demolition plans, do you have any proof of that?

Yes, I believe they would have had to e destroyed anyway.

In my work I see demolition plan drawings all the time. For example...

Although, I've never paid much attention to them and upon further research I found out that they are existing structures, not new buildings. My bad.

Why are people afraid to believe that what we saw on 9/11 actually happened?

A group of people hijacked 2 planes and flew them into the towers.

The buildings which represented pinnacles of modern engineering and construction collapsed from the impact and subsequent fires.

What is it about the above that makes ppl so afraid that they look for other reasons? That ppl actually flew themselves into a building or that what we do not know as much about construction and engineering as we thought we do or that somethings are uncontrollable?

Why so many conspiracy theories? if you choose to disbelieve something, you will find countless reasons to give credence to your disbelief.

If I remember well this is about an alternative idea/theory on how the buildings came down.

N.I.S.T cannot fully explain how they came down and even admit that they had to increase the speed of the planes in their computer model in order to invoke a building crash.

The Russian guy comes up with some idea and now I am just suggesting that it could be that indeed some kind of demolition or plan was activated

to bring these towers down.

I think this is plausible?

Suppose that happened, that some organization decided to activate the plan as the building and possibly the remaining people inside could not be saved that would mean that the person responsible to make that decision would be (partly) responsible for the death of those people?

Hmmmm.....interesting.

N.I.S.T cannot fully explain how they came down and even admit that they had to increase the speed of the planes in their computer model in order to invoke a building crash.

Computer models are not the same as reality.

If I remember correctly they made a scale model of a few floors and shot shrapnel in them to show insulating material would come off, (as it did).

Still what is strange as well are the basement fires or "heatpools" weeks after the buildings came down, if the fires were on the top floor how can there be redhot metal on the bottom of the piles?

Strange.

If there was indeed a nuclear device under the foundations of the buildings, the buildings would have crashed bottom in first right?

Now have a look at these pictures where clearly they come down top first.

Here is a reply from the Russian in question (asked same Q myself)

Re: dust Re: dust Hi. It is difficult to answer your question, though, I guess, I understand what you mean - why the Tower didn't start to crush down immediately once only the very first lower part of it was pulverized? That is what you mean? Why the Tower top 'waited' for the entire Tower was pulverized first and then only strated to crush down? Is that what you meant? To be honest, I don't know. I know only for sure about the existense of a demolition scheme, and about general physical properties of an underground nuclear explosions. The rest - are merely conclusions of mine. However, I think it might happen because of this. Perhaps it does not take 12 seconds for crashing wave to slowly pass along the entire Tower's body. Perhaps it takes about 11 seconds or so for the X-ray underground to be absorbed by the rock, then for the overheated rock to be evaporated and to begin trying to expand the primary size of the cavity to its secondary size by the pressure, while the actual process of 'crushing' the rock around and, consecutively, of the Tower's body on top, might take merely a second or even less than a second. Perhaps the crushing wave travelled along the entire Tower's body in only a split of a second, since the steel might have different properties in conducting such a wave compare to granite. I am almost certain that that is the case, but I can't be sure about it. You have to understand first of all, that this was the very first attempt to actually demolish a skyscraper by such a thing as a nuclear explosion under it. So, there is no prior expreience accumulated, no studies at all undertakena and now we could only guess. I am certain that even Mr. Loizeaux from 'Controlled Demolition Inc.' would not be able to answer this question - simply because he has never studied it and has no any experience. That is probably the best I could master in answering your question.

Sincerely yours,

Dimitri

The guy says there would be a huge cavity created by the device but I do not see any.

These are probably NOT the nuke cavity if one existed... just too obvious! I think the underground nuke theory provides for a capping of the cavity...which is nice.

If a nuke was used, wouldn't radiation have been detected?

In the video, the Russian says the granite bedrock (site chosen due to this bedrock) 'filtered' the radiation.

However lots of splinter conspiracy theories (Splitters!!!) talk about strange elements.. but the powers that be put these down to exit lights and what not.. actually i think one govt source says the amount of one element associated with nuke blasts was NOT accountable in full from all the exit lights that use the radiocative glow in the dark element..

here we are (randon google search) "Elements such as Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium." [were found at ground zero]

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseact...logId=382809247

Why are people afraid to believe that what we saw on 9/11 actually happened?

• Because of the fact that military drills were being run simulating exactly the same thing that REALLY happened. On the same day at the same time.
  "Is this a drill, or real life".
  
• not just 2 skyscrapers collapse. 3 do. And it SURE looks like a demolition collapse to me!!!
  
• Same 'drill' goes live in the UK. 7/7 bombings.
  
• Assassinations of Dr David Kelly, WMD expert. UK Govt cover up. Iraq linked. Showed the power of the people pulling strings.
  
• Pentagon hit by a plane/missile (doesn't matter, it means the USA would have been defenceless had a military strength explosion occurred - 'mini nuke'/bunker buster etc) Yet no one high up is demanding WHY it was allowed to happen!!! Massive failure? - massive promotions for those involved actually.
  
• President sits in schoolroom after shit hits fan, for how many minutes... ok this is understandable.. the guy was a theatrical prop. A bobble hat on a tiger.
  

watch WTC7

Thanks much for all the convincing "evidence".

Why are people afraid to believe that what we saw on 9/11 actually happened?

A group of people hijacked 2 planes and flew them into the towers.

The buildings which represented pinnacles of modern engineering and construction collapsed from the impact and subsequent fires.

What is it about the above that makes ppl so afraid that they look for other reasons? That ppl actually flew themselves into a building or that what we do not know as much about construction and engineering as we thought we do or that somethings are uncontrollable?

Bit of a stretch & reversal there

Just as easy to say why are some so afraid to consider other possibilities. Yes it is obvious that two planes struck two buildings.

Yet those with a building background or those with a physics background have questions.

Why is answering them a problem?

WTC7 is probably the best of them all to look at & question. That way you can set aside the obvious for a moment. Yes no planes hit this 47 story tower. Yet it collapses at the speed of the others just the same as the other two that are claimed to have fallen at that impossible speed due to jet fuel vaporizing? the steel. Must be vaporized because what else falls at that speed not allowing for any slowing or pancaking effect?

Ok so we set that aside & now we question/wonder about WTC7...So what made this one also fall at that speed? Proximity alone? Very odd eh considering other buildings were near & did not suffer any damages let alone this incredible perfect collapse ....again.

Ok so lets be cynical for a moment & say we wonder what was inside WTC7...? Ever wonder?

Would it be surprising to know it held the largest US Secret Service office in the USA?

Along with of all their records/evidence/cases & files?

How about FBI? or Department of Defense? Yes they were in WTC7 too.

IRS? yep they lost a lot of corporate fraud case work they claimed & their old Enron case too.

Securities & Exchange Commission also had a large office in there. They were working on Stock frauds cases some very large against the likes of CitiBanks Salomon Smith Barney.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit since it is all true.... Then again I am not fearful, Just curious.... Is that ok to be curious or to wonder?

Or is it Amerika now?

If a nuclear explosion brought down the first tower, what brought down the 2nd?

They collapsed in the same way so is it safe to assume it was a 2nd explosion?

The towers were so close. Were these nukes so small that they could be targeted so specifically?

Why haven't there been any reports of these being used the past 8-9 years in the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan? Or are they only allowed for domestic use?

Koheesti:

Don't forget WTC-7. There must have been three of them.

Thanks to Mr. Flying, we now know who was behind the entire terrorist action of 9/11. It was Enron!

Koheesti:

Don't forget WTC-7. There must have been three of them.

Thanks to Mr. Flying, we now know who was behind the entire terrorist action of 9/11. It was Enron!

Actually your probably right...The buildings slipped & fell on a oil slick

As for the nuke theory I did not watch the original videos so have no opinion.

I was never so much interested in what brought down any of the buildings.

More curious as to the why's...Of course the obvious would be a free pass to invade countries but.....

Since when did they need that? So......I was just curious....None of it affects you or I ultimately...after all we are tiny blips of no real significance. As I said just something to wonder about.

Back to your enron comment....I dont really think your that ignorant but just in case....

All those facts where just side bars as to who occupied the WTC7 building....You knew that right chuck?

Koheesti:

Don't forget WTC-7. There must have been three of them.

Thanks to Mr. Flying, we now know who was behind the entire terrorist action of 9/11. It was Enron!

Actually your probably right...The buildings slipped & fell on a oil slick

As for the nuke theory I did not watch the original videos so have no opinion.

I was never so much interested in what brought down any of the buildings.

More curious as to the why's...Of course the obvious would be a free pass to invade countries but.....

Since when did they need that? So......I was just curious....None of it affects you or I ultimately...after all we are tiny blips of no real significance. As I said just something to wonder about.

Back to your enron comment....I dont really think your that ignorant but just in case....

All those facts where just side bars as to who occupied the WTC7 building....You knew that right chuck?

Didn't this give you a clue?

By the way, your oil slick idea has as much believability as the nuke. Maybe we should explore that further?

Didn't this give you a clue?

Tuu Tong...didn't mine?

You knew that right chuck?

Meung gun

By the way, your oil slick idea has as much believability as the nuke. Maybe we should explore that further?

It's possible. Ask yourself, WHO wanted us to invade an oil-rich country? The Oil companies of course! What resource do they have plenty of at their disposal? Mini-nukes? No. OIL? YES!! It all fits so perfectly!

Wow man. I never thought of that. I just want to keep an open mind man. What's wrong with that?

Far <deleted> out!

It's possible. Ask yourself, WHO wanted us to invade an oil-rich country?

Joking or not...probably closer to truth than most would accept.

When was the last war actually won by the US? Wars have long since been about winning & supposed right & wrong.

That is the excuse to start one.

Follow the money. Somebody is raking in the dough while kids are killed.

In the end the US will just leave like VN, Iraq,& now the Korangal outpost.

What was achieved? All they fought for was to protect their own presence in a place

they did not belong. Ultimately a hel_l of a lot of sons & daughters are killed (on both sides) & the rich get richer.

Done..Done.. On to the next one

It's possible. Ask yourself, WHO wanted us to invade an oil-rich country?

Joking or not...probably closer to truth than most would accept.

When was the last war actually won by the US? Wars have long since been about winning & supposed right & wrong.

That is the excuse to start one.

Iraq War. The occupation has been rough but the war was a 3-week cake walk.

Follow the money. Somebody is raking in the dough while kids are killed.

In the end the US will just leave like VN, Iraq,& now the Koran gal outpost.

What was achieved? All they fought for was to protect their own presence in a place

they did not belong. Ultimately a hel_l of a lot of sons & daughters are killed (on both sides) & the rich get richer.

Done..Done.. On to the next one

EVERY endeavor taken on by mankind involves someone profiting. Even noble causes like saving the planet or raising money for Haitian earthquake victims.

Wow man. I never thought of that. I just want to keep an open mind man. What's wrong with that?

Far <deleted> out!

Come on UG, please take a look at this video again, and imagine for one second you were told by the US Govt that the building had been pre-rigged with demolition charges - in case of national crisis or whatever. Because it housed so many secret service offices, in fact even the 'command bunker' for an attack on New York city...

So imagine the media had said: "The building was pulled due to structural failure risk"

would you believe that?

So either Americans build 40+ storey skyscrapers REALLY BADLY or this was brought down in a perfect demolition.

I consider myself sane, for thinking this looks exactly like a demolition (regardless of any use of magic nuke/death rays from wherever)

What do you say UG, would you agree that I may be classified as a rational man for thinking this collapse looks very orderly?...

------------------------------

more on pre-rigging: Swiss tunnels

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Lucerne_yields...tml?cid=3456984

Lucerne yields up explosive secrets

Relics of Switzerland’s Cold War defences are turning up in surprising places.

Residents of a quiet area of Lucerne were shocked recently to find that explosives had been buried beneath their streets.

They were planted there by the Swiss army because the road was judged strategically important; in the event of invasion it would have been blown up.

But local people are angry that they didn’t know what was on their doorstep. They were only informed when the army decided to dig the devices up again.

“I got a letter from the defence ministry, telling us there was dynamite buried here on our street, and that they were coming to take it away, “ Rieska Dommann told swissinfo.

“I was amazed, I never knew those explosives were here. This is a purely residential area with no important through routes, so I was very surprised the army had put explosives here.”

Come on UG, please take a look at this video again, and imagine for one second you were told by the US Govt that the building had been pre-rigged with demolition charges - in case of national crisis or whatever. Because it housed so many secret service offices, in fact even the 'command bunker' for an attack on New York city...

So, they build a command bunker - presumably to withstand damage from any attack - and they pack with enough explosives to bring it down? That doesn't make sense. Bunkers are supposed to protect against explosives, not come with explosives built into them.

It would seem that UG has been brainwashed by the almight US Govt propaganda machine "The United States can do no wrong" .

Its okay UG, its hard for us old folk to see reality some times, even when its millimetres from our nose

Interesting example WR bout the Swiss.

But even with the pic's you provided I do no see the 100M wide cavity as he says there would be (see pic).

But preplanted devices along the core (for example) in order to bring such buildings down in case of a calamity is not unbelievable.

Building 7 is very obviously pulled, no doubt about that one.