DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - WTF is going on in America

**loan4younow** · 10-02-2011, 04:39 PM

The only merit I could see to the controlled demolition argument would be this:

In 1993 terrorists almost succeeded in weakening the base of the WTC. A 'smart' government would have put contingency plans into place which would have planned for a more successful attack in the future. What if another bomb weakened things to the point that the WTC had to be destroyed? How could the loss of life and property in the vicinity be minimized if a future attack was more successful than the 1993 attack?

One of the best ways would have been to plan for, and wire the buildings in advance for demolition. If a future attack weakened the foundation of the building, noone would want to go in there and figure out how to wire the place for demolition after the building was extremely unsafe.

So what if the US Govt actually wired the building in advance for just such a contingency as ultimately happened on 9/11? What if it was finally determined that most of the people who could get out had gotten out, and the president decided to pre-empt a disastrous sideways collapse by ordering the contingency (demolition) plans into operation? I mean after all: This is a president who wasn't afraid of taking pre-emptive strikes, the government had reason to believe a full 10 years beforehand that terrorists would once again seek to collapse WTC1 and 2 sooner or later.

That kind of scenario explains several things:
It explains the demolition type implosion, and why the buildings didn't develop much of a sideways velocity/momentum from a non-isotropic failure.
It explains why the government would pooh-pooh such claims as "demolition", they certainly wouldn't want the public to know the govt has wired buildings for destruction.
It explains why almost everyone got out (minus a couple hundred firefighters) before the buildings collapsed.
It explains why the government did everything it could to try to prevent investigation of the event.
It explains why Marvin Bush would not be investigated, as head of security, he would probably know of the contingency plan.

It also doesn't require the president or anyone else in government to have had malicious plans at intentionally allowing the attacks, they were simply trying to minimize the potential catastrophic damage after the attacks.

The downside to the argument is: It would require a fairly large conspiracy, of about 19 people.

Oh wait, that's the number of people involved in the official conspiracy behind 9/11. Oh snap.

10-02-2011, 04:39 PM	#25
loan4younow Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 479 Senior Member	The only merit I could see to the controlled demolition argument would be this: In 1993 terrorists almost succeeded in weakening the base of the WTC. A 'smart' government would have put contingency plans into place which would have planned for a more successful attack in the future. What if another bomb weakened things to the point that the WTC had to be destroyed? How could the loss of life and property in the vicinity be minimized if a future attack was more successful than the 1993 attack? One of the best ways would have been to plan for, and wire the buildings in advance for demolition. If a future attack weakened the foundation of the building, noone would want to go in there and figure out how to wire the place for demolition after the building was extremely unsafe. So what if the US Govt actually wired the building in advance for just such a contingency as ultimately happened on 9/11? What if it was finally determined that most of the people who could get out had gotten out, and the president decided to pre-empt a disastrous sideways collapse by ordering the contingency (demolition) plans into operation? I mean after all: This is a president who wasn't afraid of taking pre-emptive strikes, the government had reason to believe a full 10 years beforehand that terrorists would once again seek to collapse WTC1 and 2 sooner or later. That kind of scenario explains several things: It explains the demolition type implosion, and why the buildings didn't develop much of a sideways velocity/momentum from a non-isotropic failure. It explains why the government would pooh-pooh such claims as "demolition", they certainly wouldn't want the public to know the govt has wired buildings for destruction. It explains why almost everyone got out (minus a couple hundred firefighters) before the buildings collapsed. It explains why the government did everything it could to try to prevent investigation of the event. It explains why Marvin Bush would not be investigated, as head of security, he would probably know of the contingency plan. It also doesn't require the president or anyone else in government to have had malicious plans at intentionally allowing the attacks, they were simply trying to minimize the potential catastrophic damage after the attacks. The downside to the argument is: It would require a fairly large conspiracy, of about 19 people. Oh wait, that's the number of people involved in the official conspiracy behind 9/11. Oh snap.
	Quote