While I agree with enorbet and find your theory highly un-likely, just out of morbid curiosity, which "group of Americans" are you talking about?

9-11 was the SECOND ATTEMPT to blow up the twin towers. It's amazing how many survivors of the 1993 attack were in the buildings on 9-11. Why, they even tried to get me a job there, seriously. Only person missing that day seems to be Larry Silverstein. What a stroke of luck for him!

Debate time is over. It's a scientific fact 9-11 was an inside job and the debunkers have themselves been debunked:
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-.../dp/156656686X
This guy has a Ph.D so all you ignorant people with lesser degrees don't even qualify to debate him. You see, the government isn't the only one who can use credentials instead of facts.

Oh, so us not holding a Ph.D means that YOU are right and no one else knows what their talking about and the debate is over??

You sound like someone who thinks everyone MUST agree with you or they must be wrong and YOU must be right. Well that says a lot more about YOU, than anyone else!

I wouldn't expect much help from other members, treating them like that, if I were you (glad I'm NOT YOU).

One does not require a degree to compute odds regarding keeping secrets. Fewer is better.

-- Dirt-y Truth --

^ My sentiments exactly.

enorbet finds most of the things that I say "highly unlikely!"

- - -

I have utterly no idea. I can't even guess. An attack like this one re-defines the word, "psychopathy." It is difficult to wrap your head around the possibility of it, which is probably why no one did.

However, I don't buy any notions like "the owner of the building did it," etc. I have no idea what the motive for such a thing could possibly be. I have no idea why any company that had the technical capability to do it – knowing damn well what a very-tiny company they keep – would not immediately go to the FBI on the very first suggestion of such an incomprehensibly heinous act. My brain does not want even to consider that someone would actually do such a thing as this, anywhere, for any reason. Let alone that people would diabolically plan it, execute it, walk into a building day after day knowing that very soon most of the people that they met in the hallways would be dead, and that they would have been the ones who killed them all. I don't want to wrap my head around the idea that any such people exist on this Earth.

The real key to the mystery of "why" would probably lie with "Building 7," the third building to collapse into its own footprint and the one that is most-unmistakably the work of demolition. As I said, this building contained the terrorism response center, and it fell straight-down into its footprint like the others, but did so hours later ...specifically, "enough time for the terrorism-response officials to go into their supposed stronghold and start reassuring the public," at which time they, too would all be killed and a mockery would be made of their folly in building such a redoubt above ground. This adds an entire layer of complexity to the puzzle of motivation: the attackers not only demolitioned the two main towers, but also then attacked the anticipated emergency-response center, and those who they expected to then be occupying it. You would anticipate that this building would be profoundly protected and constantly watched due to the nature of what it was built to contain, but its security was totally compromised, as well. It had been completely "rigged," such that you could not tell which buildings contained the stronghold when the whole thing fell smoothly to the ground.

But – I know that I don't know, and I know that I will never know, and in this particular case I don't think that I really want to know.

Can't tell if sarcastic.

I used to work for a large construction management firm, where controlled demolition is a very important science / art, especially in tight urban quarters. Upon first viewing the collapse on TV, before hearing any official reports, I immediately said to my wife, "That building was brought down by professional demolition experts."

Aah, interesting. Would you say that explosives were a third of the way up (where the planes hit, where the fire burned for over an hour, and where it's generally agreed that the collapse started), or would you say they were in the foundation (where they surely would have been for a controlled demolition)? I have further questions, of course, but let's start with this one.

I hope that as a person with some domain knowledge, you can give me a better answer than Sundialsvcs previously did (he just said the question was "derisive").

I cannot answer your question as I am not myself a demolitions expert. My former job was not as a construction or demolition expert, but was a desk job where I had to know just enough of the various trades in order to do a cost analysis. From this I can say that I know it takes engineering expertise to make a tall building fall into its own footprint. Explosives must be placed in such a manner and timed to ignite in a particular sequence such that the collapse is a controlled collapse. Otherwise, some sections will inevitably topple in a skew manner and damage adjoining property. I believe the engineers who place the explosives must know the details of the building's structural design, so that the placement and timing may vary from building to building, depending upon the structural details. I think controlled demolition generally works from the top down, not from the foundation up.

Anyway, I was merely expressing, from my limited knowledge of demolition, what my immediate reaction was upon first viewing a video of the collapse. I know not what further to conclude or surmise.

Who in their right mind would have contracted to deliver a successful controlled demolition of not one but at least two towers standing roughly 1800 feet tall when the tallest building ever "imploded" was just shy of one-fifth (1/5) that at 439 feet? In addition to the huge gap in height, there were no test subjects, no examples of anything remotely of a similar structural design that have ever been subjected to controlled demolition.

Aside from following the expertise (or lack of it), if we follow the (hypothetical) money who would spend many millions of dollars on such a risk since not only was there zero point of reference for the logistics of the demolition but also for preventing discovery at several points leading up to and culminating in the final event? That risk would not only be extreme but extreme for an extremely long period of time multiplying the likelihood of discovery, failure and retribution.

Just on the basis of Occam's Razor, it is simpler that mujahideen, emboldened by the David & Goliath success of effectively defeating the Russian Military wanted to make a global statement that even the US could be hit, that nobody, nowhere is safe and secure, and realizing that just striking a building anywhere in the US let alone in NYC and killing a few hundred people would have been wildly successful at achieving that goal. That the collapses occurred and thousands died was just a massive and unexpected bonus of sorts. If they failed at any of it the risk was minimal. That makes some sort of cost/benefit sense.

An internally planned and executed, long term, high exposure, treasonous plot with huge risk and the prospect of deep and furious retribution on all the conspirators and their families makes no sense. While mujahideen would be and are thought by many to be heroes among their peers for striking back at an enemy, plotters would go down in history as exceeding Benedict Arnold by many orders of magnitude, even approaching the disgust and derision earned by ol' Adolf himself. I'd sooner imagine fish riding bicycles.

All those people saying "it takes a construction expert so Bin Laden couldn't have done it" are aware of of what Bin Laden's family business is in, right?

I suspect that barely entered into the plan. Mujahideen knew the value of cars as bombs and it is only a small step to planes as bombs. I doubt any of the conspirators was aiming to drop the towers to the ground. That was just bonus good luck since I doubt they understood the implications of the radical for the time construction techniques used in the WTC towers. Especially after plane impacts had been tested for, nobody even thought of the effects of a fully fueled commercial jet. That was exactly why such a plan could work. Commonly pilots of commercial jets would do everything in their power to avoid collision. It was totally unexpected that someone might actually choose such a collision, especially in Western minds where suicide is a no no and not thought to be rewarded with eternal paradise with many virgin slaves.

Oh please! Can't you recognise sarcasm when you see it?

As it happens, I also have a PhD and I believe it was terrorists in planes.

ah, the thread is getting interesting!

anyhow, i was thinking, i think i've never seen footage of a building collapse un-controlled?
anybody?