Semi-Controlled Demolition.....

[catnhatnh]

How about this as a theory? "They" absolutely needed the buildings to collapse and ALSO needed New York back to work within a few days to prevent the collapse of financial markets.Some damage to buildings within say 100 yards was acceptable but 300 yards of toppled debris (particularly towards Wall St was unacceptable.Remember that the EPA lied about air quality to get the markets back up.Now you are left with a semi-controlled demolition-less precise but still catastrophic....more of a down and dirty rigging of explosives with less care for perfect "footprint" placement of debris.More obvious ejection of identical length girders.And the obviously helpful placement of contradictory evidence...IE:they fell in their own footprint=controlled vs. Damage to nearby buildings=pancake collapse....And down and dirty means fast-a two week shutdown was plenty if damage to the nearest buildings was not only OK, but in fact desirable to support your "terrorists did it" theory...Anyhow, I thought this might explain how you fast track controlled demolition to make it a feasible theory and explain some of the physical evidence...flame on!

[LARED]

1. How about this as a theory?

As silly as the rest of them.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

2. The official conspiracy theory included? It's the silliest of all n/t

[HamdenRice]

3. Controlled demolition vs military demolition

While I don't subscribe to any particular theory, I think your post does remind us of something very, very important -- namely the difference between controlled demolition and military demolition.

That is, we know that controlled demolition is an incredibly careful, precise process carried out by commercial companies, whose work is constrained by many, many factors, such as keeping the cost of removal low, avoiding any liability to adjoining property owners, and so on.

But the military has a huge amount of experience in demolition as part of military offensives. These guys do not have to be careful and can bring down a building, as you say, "quick and dirty." I used to have an acquaintance who was a demolition expert in Iraq War I, and he said that they were inserted into Iraqi ports to basically blow stuff up and I certainly didn't get the impression from his war stories that he were incredibly careful.

[JackRiddler]

4. everyone engages in a misnomer...

Obviously if this was a demolition, it was not particularly "controlled." On the towers, something like 1/3 the debris spewed out of the footprint.

But almost everyone makes this mistake for some reason and speaks of CD.

The self-appointed debunko squad seize on this term and come up with moronic arguments that "controlled demolitions" involve gutting the building first (as though you couldn't blow up a full building if you didn't care who died), drilling holes in every column, extensive wiring (as though remote activation were not possible), so that it would take 30,000 workers eight years to prepare and the whole world would notice and the receptionists and keyboard jockies (who don't give a shit what a group of uniformed maintenance workers may be doing in the building core, if they even noticed) would all testify they saw the demolition crew and everyone would want to give away the secret, blah blah blah.

All peripherals or irrelevant. The question is simply whether explosives were used to demolish or not. If yes, then the matter of how they were planted comes up. But the alleged difficulty of planting explosives is of no relevance to the first question.

[rman]

5. It is CD in that it was deliberate

It is obviously not normaal CD.
If it was normal CD then all kinds of very visible measures would have been taken outside the towers to prevent debris from damaging nearby buildings and to prevent all of lower Manhattan from being covered in dust. The fact those measures were not taken does not mean the demolition was not on purpose. It does mean the perpetrators didn't want to make it to obvious that it was CD, for obvious reasons.
The demolition was controlled - just not controlled in the usual way.

[Ferry Fey]

6. Close enough for government work?

The demolition was controlled - just not controlled in the usual way.

The phrase "Close enough for government work" comes to mind... ;)

[rman]

10. close enough for covert clandestine govt work

i'd say.

[HamdenRice]

7. LOL! Right - it would take emptying the building and drilling columns

and 30,000 workers 8 years. That's a pretty good charicature of their arguments!

[sabbat hunter]

8. that is incorrect

in order for implosion to take place the columns have to be cut 90% of the way thru, explosives wired to fire off in a sequence. usually a building that is going to be imploded will be stripped down to the studs to make clean up easier. also a building that has its supports cut 90% of the way thru would not support the weight of the equipment in the building (computers, desks etc) and personel. it takes weeks to prep a building for implosion.

at least be honest in what the people who dont believe the WTC were imploded think.

[HamdenRice]

9. Do the US Army's demolition engineers

cut columns, strip down to the studs "to make cleanup easier", etc? (And I'm not suggesting it was the Army, just that a different protocol exists.)

The point is, there is a difference between demolition and controlled demolition. If you don't believe that, it's hard to imagine where to start a conversation.

[sabbat hunter]

11. definately a difference

however when it comes to demolishing large structures even the Army corp of engineers have to take their time to make sure the charges are placed correctly and will fire off in a sequence to collapse the structure completely. a bridge can take hours to get the charges set just right.

[HamdenRice]

12. So there are many different levels of demolition

There is controlled demo by commercial companies. There is military demo (your bridge example) when there is time to set the charges in sequence etc.

But there is also demo when the engineer is a navy seal (my acquaintance), who slips onto a beach and who has about 15 minutes to blow up a big building and "blow up shit", and believe me, they can do that too.

This isn't really about any particular theory of 9/11, but to show that the idea, that controlled demo at the WTC would require emptying out the building, cutting beams, etc., is a red-herring. That's one way of blowing up a building, but there are others.