Got an email that the WTC buildings were built with demolition options

[Gin]

to bring them down when they became obsolete. After checking out some sites, I think that's possible. The way the towers came down on 9-11 I thought it looked like a planned demolition but thought it was a co-incidence since it was reported that the steel melted. That made sense.

Does anyone else think the buildings were brought down by the owners for the insurance money?

gin

[ProudGerman]

1. What kind of "demolition options"?

Like Dynamite "cutters" strapped to specific supports?


If ya ask me, sounds like someone dropped a "load" in your inbox.

[RC]

2. Bone up on demolition of buildings.

Then come back here. The Towers were brought down in a controlled manner. So was WTC 7.

[Gin]

3. do explosive put in place initially to demolish a building..deteriorate

with time...I read that as a criticism of this theory.

gin

[kalian]

8. Its possible....

but then again, what would it take to get to these charges during
"off-peak" hours and "prepare" them for their use under "controlled"
conditions? :shrug:

WTC7 was definitely brought down by demos. There was an article
talking about how Silverstein (the WTC owner) "agreed" with the FDNY
that the building needed to be brought down. Sure...whatever
Silverstein...whatever...

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Silverstein said no such thing:

he agreed that the firefighting operation should be pulled from WTC 7, since the fire was uncontainable.

You should check into things before you say stuff.

[ProudGerman]

5. I thought I was boning up

the original poster could have offered up some of the options. Such as the way the support columns were cut.

Look, I don't think its weird that the towers came down the way they did. They were built in a different era than alot of the skyscrapers of the NY skyline. They weren't over-engineered like great architectural projects of the past. They were built to be just good enough. Tighter tolerances, cheaper construction costs and all the goodness of modern construction.

[Solomon]

59. The story I heard was that after the '93 bombing they realized that

a lot of destruction would have occurred if the buildings fell over, so they rigged them to come straight down if they were attacked again. Now that does make sense. What doesn't make sense is that they would bring them down with people still in them.

[Abe Linkman]

60. What is it about bringing them down w/people in them...

that doesn't make sense to you?

[Solomon]

61. It doesn't make sense because it seems they would have waited awhile

to make sure most people were out of there before bringing them down. Instead, the towers fell whil police and firemen were still attempting rescues. This fact makes me doubt that they were intentionally brought down. On the other hand, they certainly looked like controlled demolitions to me and I just don't believe the fire melting the beams pancake story.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Maybe the spooky Caveman's boys are responsible.

If you find it too much to swallow that our Gov't might endanger the lives of innocent Americans in uniform (Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin etc.)... then how about if maybe the terrusts planted explosives as part of the Big Show?

Promoters of the "Wacky Caveman Did It" Official Conspiracy could simply say: "we don't yet know how the terrusts were able to penetrate all that security that the bush boy's company provided for the WTC for long enough to go in and plant explosives. maybe the NIST "investigators" will come up with something."

So, why do they continue to adamantly insist there were no controlled demolitions taking place on 9-11? Plenty of reasons. Just think about it for a minute.

PREDICTION: If anyone is ever able to obtain and (live to) produce irrefutable hard evidence that explosives were used to bring down all those buildings on 9-11, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY WILL IMMEDIATELY INSIST THE TERRUSTS DONE IT.

I suppose "they" just don't want to play that card until they absolutely have to. Tactical decision, and all that. (Sure, they'll respond by saying: "It's not a tactical decision. The simple truth is that there were no controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings on 9-11")

[mopinko]

4. of all the 9 11 theories

this is the wackiest, imo.
"demolition options to bring them down when they became obsolete"
do you have any idea what that means? it's probalby something as simple as little "box outs" in concrete piers.
burning buildings collapse. collapsing building all look pretty much alike. they all go DOWN. i can't even imagine a scenario where they decide in the middle of that blaze to go in and blow it.

[Gin]

6. I am not so sure this is ridiculous.....the option to "implode" the

structure is built as the bulding goes up. That makes sense to me.
We may disagree but at least consider that it's possible.

By the way... I do have an idea what that means.

gin

[loftycity]

14. Marvin Bush Head of Security firm for WTC

And worked for Kuwaiti firm who owned security firm.

How convenient again!

I still think they demolished the buildings after the planes hit.
The melting steel 12 hours later --doesn't make any logical sense it could of been done from just jet fuel.

[kalian]

18. Bush's brother....

also sat on the board of directors of the WTC security firm...
Neat, huh?

[OudeVanDagen]

41. it's possible?

Nah! WTC were designed and built in an era when the US was thumbing it's nose at the world ... sticking it where it didn't belong ..... thumping it's chest ... fearless ... proclaiming itself the best ... racing to the moon ... building super highways, massive bridges, incredible stadiums ... airports, sea terminals ... super-blocks of public housing projects, and huge office complexes .... WTC is just one example ... a symbol ... of that era ... of that fearlessness ... of that arrogance. Those towers symbolized greatness ... represented overcoming all odds ... showed everyone .... EVERYONE where the real center of the world was.

You suggest the WTC construction process included explosives ... If you're right ... then the biggest ... the best ... the symbol of greatness ... fearlessness ... the center of the world ... was built with expectations of failure. You're not right.

[renegade000]

7. i think this means that

when they were engineered in such a fashion as to make a controlled demolition possible if they time came...too old, wanted to be replaced...something. i mean how is one supposed to take down a building like that?

i think this is more indicative of the reason why the buildings fell as they did...and not supportive of conspiracy theories....

[CanuckAmok]

21. That makes sense...

It's logical to incorporate a demolition strategy into a new skyscraper. For all the architects knew, when the time came to demolish the WTC towers a hundred years from now, they could have been dwarved by surrounding buildings twice as high, on all sides. Buildings the size of the Twin Towers would be a logistical nightmare to demolish, even in an ideal situation. Factor in the variables of the 'real world', and it's concievable that the eventual routine demolition of the ancient WTC could have been nearly impossible, without a plan devised and incorporated during construction.

I doubt it was something as reckless as strapping charges throughout the building, for a number of reasons. It was probably more along the lines of creating areas throughout the structures which could be used as part of a complex controlled implosion pattern, when the time came.

[OudeVanDagen]

38. it's logical ... makes sense?

No. Scores of tall NYC buildings in crowded areas ... some built over subways, rail lines, water and vehicle tunnels ... have been torn down ... without 'implosion patterns' and etc ... to make way for new buildings and for highway construction ... for decades .... Penn Station ... the old Madison Square Garden .... 55 Broadway .... the Westside Meat and Ice houses .... Gimbels ... geez!

[DS1]

747s are built with self-destruct

In case the pilot is informed that his ex-wife standing at the gate.

[Interrobang]

9. This has already been settled, people.

The head of the architectural firm that built the WTC was on CBC radio at about 11AM on September 11th, giving a very thorough lay explanation of how it happened...incidentally, when I was talking about it with my ex-boss, the Professional Engineer and metallurgy buff, he said exactly the same thing. There was no "controlled manner demolition," there was no "demolition options," and there certainly was no conspiracy. What there was, was a popular, cost-cutting method of construction and the laws of physics.

In brief, it works sort of like this:

The WTC was built with a metaphorical exoskeleton, with the floors hanging on the outer support columns on giant hook-like structures, sort of like a fruit rotter (hanging metal baskets in your kitchen) in reverse. There was very little concrete and a lot of metal used in the structure -- it was built to be light, cheap, and flexible. Hence, upon impact, there was torque, and because of burning jet fuel, there was heat. Lots and lots of heat. When the superstructure heated enough, it softened, and started to bend. All the floors, starting with the ones around the impact site, started to come loose from their moorings (imagine pushing up on the bottom of a fruit rotter and watching the chains go slack). Then the floors started to collapse. When enough floors collapsed, there was a critical mass of weight which overwhelmed the superheated superstructure, and the whole thing came down.

There's no mystery here, just basic physics, engineering, and metallurgy.

[kalian]

11. Sorry...the part that falls flat (pun intended)...

is the bs theory about the airplane fule being hot enough to
melt the beams... 100% pure American USDA bullshit.

[DS1]

12. back that up

If it's so bullshit, find the melting point of steel, and the burning temperature of JP4. Make sure you calculate a massive supply of fresh oxygen for the fire, as well as plenty of combustible material.

I'm waiting.

[kalian]

13. "Massive supply of fresh O2"....

umm...you mean pressurized O2? :eyes: Sorry...regular atmospheric
air does not count...

[DS1]

15. At 60 - 80 floors up something called wind exists

Here's your fucking :eyes: back

[kalian]

17. Not enough pal...not enough....

and I have a question for you: why is it that some people have a
desperate urge to not believe that there are other possibilities
instead of the "official word"? Hmmm....? Too scared to face the
truth?

Remember...its dubya's doing...its dubya's word...

I guess you also believe that Atta's passport was found amongst
the debris...or that the flight attendants' body (bound up as well)
was found in the wreckage... :eyes:

Enjoy your sense of illusion. :eyes:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catch22Dem]

19. fuel not fule (n/t)

[kalian]

20. Oh geez...you got me! On a type-o!

...

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. add to that the one about the tanks of diesel fuel

that supposedly caused WTC7 to collapse? Never mind that diesel makes a lousy explosive and was probably in fireproof tanks.

[RC]

22. JP in the open air burns well below the softening point

of steel. Also there was lots of dark smoke, an indication of a air starved fire.
The banana theory of construction doesn't hold water either. The building was held up by massive Central columns, 47 to be exact. Why was there nothing sticking out of the bedrock when they cleared the rubble away? Some of these columns went 300 feet down into the bedrock.

[kalian]

31. Yup...

so, the poster stating that there were "massice amounts of O2"...
just doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Even with PRESSURIZED O2 fanning the flames there isn't enough
combustible material to keep those flames burning. Aircraft crashes
do NOT burn that long UNLESS they land on grasslands, etc.

If you will read the official "assessment" of the WTC collapse, they
claim that the fire extinguisher system in the towers failed.
Hmmm...what a coincidence... :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

36. You're talking about the melting point of steel under no other stresses.

And you don't have to get to the melting point anyway to have problems. You have to get to the softening point, the point at which steel has "plastic" deformations.

Plastic here means that the steel changes shape and will keep the changes permanantly, as opposing to bending back and forth but returning to the original shape.

Factor in the increased weight stress when other supports were destroyed and transferred their weight to other crucial joints supporting their own weight load to begin with.

Factor in increased wind stress, because the structural design meant to minimize wind movement of the towers had been compromised. The tops of the towers were flopping back and forth in the wind, basically. Since we're dealing with a lot of mass, you wouldn't see much more movement than normal, but those joints were being wrenched back and forth in the wind, generating more heat stresses in the structural steel.

Under these increased stress factors, the softening point of steel falls well into the range of temperatures produced by the WTC fires.

[demodewd]

40. musings

Nice little digression but how about some hard core(pun intended) equations to back your wishful musings?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Perhaps...

...suggesting that the softening point of steel could be "lowered" isn't the wisest thing I could have done. I don't have any hard core equations.

Still, I think it's a combination of increased load, wind, and heat stresses that cause the structural steel to fail and initiate the collapse sequence. I think that stands to reason.

But I must confess that I haven't read Oude's report yet. The title frightens me, to tell the truth.

[OudeVanDagen]

42. bolo ....

... elastomeric temps and DRIFT - the variations in alignment between one floor to the floors above and below. Read the reports ....

[Bolo Boffin]

56. I will do, thanks.

Didn't mean to ignore this.

[demodewd]

39. South Tower

So how do you explain the decomposition of most of the top thirty floors of the South Tower before they had time to plummet into the rest of the building?

[kalian]

10. These buildings WERE brought down...

but not by those airplanes...sorry...physics just don't cut it
with "official explanation".

[ProudGerman]

23. alright then

When were the explosives brought into the building? Don't say during construction, as that is beyond idiotic. Dynamite doesn't keep forever, it deteriorates and becomes unstable. Also, a nothing fire in the wrong place could bring down the whole building.

Also, don't say after the planes hit, as that's beyond idiotic too. Go ask demolition companies how long it takes to set a building up for implosion. It takes weeks, and requires significant set up work. Not stuff you can hide while people are in the building. Beam have to be pre-cut, miles of cord have to be ran.

The buildings were not imploded. I'd believe shoddy construction and corner cutting long before I believe a massive consipiracy involving many people.

[loftycity]

24. How about coffee can nukes?

And why was metal still molten 12 hours later?

[Robb]

25. Huh?

What's a coffee can nuke? Should I be concerned going into the supermarket?

[loftycity]

26. The size

that's all. I've never been conspiracy oriented. But, my Father worked for the Department of Defense. And, he believes the 9/11 thing was planned. They let it happened and enhanced the results.

[Robb]

27. Well,

the smallest nuclear weapons conceived yield about .1 kt, or the equivalent of around 200,000 lbs of TNT.

FEMA calculated the OKC bomb at an equivalent of around 4,000 lbs of TNT, and you'll recall a less than orderly collapse.

I would think a blast of that size would have a very different effect on a skyscraper, so I'd rule out nukes.

As to the rest, it seems improbable and overly complex. But I certainly don't know enough about it to disprove the theory... did the authors? :shrug:

[loftycity]

28. Who really benefited from all of this?

That's always at the heart of it.

And the Air Force was told to stand down...


Did you ever picture the future to be like this?
It sure has worked like clockwork for the Bush administration...

We all have to use discrimination...but, they have taught us well on not believing in conspiracies. Gore Vidal points this out on conspiracies...many times.

[Robb]

43. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory

Goodness knows. :)

The trouble with the "who benefits?" tack is that it does nothing to lead you to the truth. An absurdist example: consider how much money the lumber industry stands to gain every time there is a hurricane and folks board up their windows. Certainly it would be in their interest to have (1) more hurricanes, or (2) at least more hurricane alerts.

So in a similar spectrum to what we see surrounding 9/11, we could have a group at one end who says Big Lumber has nothing to do with causing hurricanes, don't be silly. At the other, a group who is convinced Big Lumber has put together machines that create hurricanes. And in the middle, a bunch of folks finding interesting stuff about the lumber executives donating money or research facilities to NOAA and various weather reporting agencies over the years, maybe influencing their decisions as to when to issue hurrican alerts.

See where I'm going? None of this addresses the fundamental issues of hurricanes themselves. None of it helps arrive at the truth.

Aaaand off the soapbox I go. ;)

[kalian]

29. GOOD question....

no, definitely not during construction...that would be utterly bogus.
The question is what demolitions were utilized... Thermite charges
are key suspects and would explain the "molten" beams and other
steels found at the VERY bottom of the WTC rubble.
Thermites BURN for a VERY long time.

As to when they were placed...I have no idea.

[TrogL]

30. This thread belongs in the 9-11 forum with the ten identical ones

It's absolute nonsense based upon a logical fallacy - that things that look alike are identical.

All cows are blue.
My dog is a blue.
Therefore my dog is a cow.

Nonsense.

A controlled demolition falls straight down.
The Twin towers fell straight down.
Therefore the twin towers were a controlled demolition.

Also nonsense.

[kalian]

32. As I stated to the other poster....

Remember...its dubya's doing...its dubya's word...

I guess you also believe that Atta's passport was found amongst
the debris...or that the flight attendants' body (bound up as well)
was found in the wreckage...

Enjoy your beliefs...

[DS1]

33. Come back with something other than speculation

The links posted over and over again merely talk about stuff they ~didn't~ see happening, and that's proof apparently.

[kalian]

37. Yup...I guess you DO believe that Atta's passport was found...

in the WTC rubble...
I bet you also believe that they found an abandoned car with a koran
and a flight manual in arabic in Fl. What else...? :eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

63. Now Hear THIS: Another Passport survived the crashes!

http://www.rense.com/general48/secondhijackerpass.htm

[loftycity]

34. Nonsense...

Why waste your time discussing something your not interested in?

[RC]

46. The only way the towers could fall as they did was by

cutting their support columns at the bottom. Other wise they would have mushroomed out as they fell, taking the surrounding buildings with them.

[RC]

45. If the Twin Towers fell down on their own because planes

flew into them, then why is there so much controversy & disagreement about what happened?

Why doesn't the Official explanation hold water?

Why does there seem to be an organized attempt to debunk other than Official theories about 9/11?

Why has the White House stymied any and all investigation in to 9/11?

Why wasn't any independent forensic investigation done on the rubble from the Towers? Wouldn't that have gone a long way to answer our questions? The steel was hauled off and sold over seas in short order.

Why, why why?

[OudeVanDagen]

47. Q-N-A

Q: "Why wasn't any independent forensic investigation done on the rubble from the Towers?"

A: It has been. Just follow the $$$.

Q: "Wouldn't that have gone a long way to answer our questions?"

A: Those millions have been well spent .... but you're not looking.

[loftycity]

48. You got it

No, they're hiding and that's why more and more questions will be asked. They hid the deadly pollution. Marvin Bush was in charge of security ...
Why are these 70 families going after the government.
Why are giving out the money from a fund--- and you can't bring a suit against them!?!

[OudeVanDagen]

49. Gin says: "Got an email ...

... that the WTC buildings were built with demolition options to bring them down when they became obsolete. After checking out some sites, I think that's possible. The way the towers came down on 9-11 I thought it looked like a planned demolition ... "

A part of your comment; " ..... After checking out some sites, I think that's possible .... " compels me to ask: What sites?

Where ANY of the sites you checked one of the four independent colleges that released WTC collapse studies in 2003?

[Abe Linkman]

50. Built-in demolitions story is disinformation.

I certainly don't claim to know when they were placed inside the buildings, but I don't see why it's such a big deal to focus on knowing when it was done. I read somewhere that there was some kind of "exercise drill" that emptied WTC 7 a month or so prior to 9-11. Who konws if that was an opportunistic "drill".

Seems to me the important point is that it was done at SOME time.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. if it "was done at SOME time," then evidence must exist.

What evidence do you have of this planting?

Is it only a necessary assumption for your preferred belief system about the WTC collapses? Is that the only reason you believe it to be done? Because you must?

[Abe Linkman]

54. Maybe the NIST Investigation will uncover...

exactly when the explosives were placed in each building. They're conducting a very thorough examination of some of the evidence, so I hear. We'll just have to wait and see, bolo.

[DeadBroke]

51. Obsolescence

In the most general terms, buildings have three ages: 1) a chronological age - measured from the day construction ends, 2) a structural age - established by architectural design, construction technique, and material usage, and 3) an economic age - determined by the building's capacity to be profitable. In this context the Trade Center was very young, and IMHO far from becoming obsolete.

The life span of any building depends on the culture that built it and those who use it. Unless there is neglect, abandonment or war the life span can be endless.

[demodewd]

53. Rense article

Charges Placed In WTC
Towers When Built?
By Robert L. Parish Sr.
1-21-4 http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Jeff,

The downing of the Twin Towers and other buildings of the complex where done by (Planned Implosions).

I was working at Kirkwood Commutator in Cleveland, Ohio from 1974 to September 30th, 1998. We had an Industrial/Refill Department that large commutators from 1 foot in diameter to 20 feet in diameter were made. A commutator is the circular switching device on an armature shaft that (commutates), switches the electrical current that flows thru the windings of the armature coils of an electrical motor. It is the thing that the brushes ride on that the current flows into an electric motor that energizes the field coils that causes the motor to rotate. The commutator switches the current from coil winding to coil winding that causes the motor to rotate.

I was the metrologest, gage technician who set and calibrated all the measuring devices in the plant for over 18 years.

We had a team of consultants hired by Otis Elevator to supervise and inspect all aspects of those commutators we produced for those motors. That were being made for the largest ever Twin Towers going up in Asia. Otis Elevator had the elevator contract for providing the elevators. The lead consultant engineer would always come into my gage calibration lab to watch and inspect my setting up and calibration of gages for measuring the components we were producing for the assembly of those motors. Most people who worked in the tool room, screw machine and industrial/refill departments knew (because they were making the parts) that we were manufacturing 4 or more very large commutators. But, they did not who the customer was or who they were for. Or what application they would be used in. Most of the other people in the plant had no knowledge whatsoever about was being made. All they did was make this part of something they had prints and shop orders for.

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.

So, you see, Jeff, no one had to sneak into the buildings of the WTC in New York and plant charges during a terror drill or a practice fire drill. They were already there...built into the buildings when they were constructed, just waiting for the call to detonate; waiting for the day when the buildings were no longer profitable to keep and maintain for whatever economic reasons of their owners and controllers.

The jet airliners crashed into each one on the Twin Towers and, thirty minutes later, the phone call was made and the first tower was taken down...and then the second tower was taken down. By the way, the other buildings of the complex were going to be a liability and no longer of use. So a phone call was made and they went down as well.

The controllers of the building complex of the Twin Towers made 500 million dollars profit. They did not lose any money. They do not care about people. They only care they have is their profit margin and bottom-line being as far in the black as they can get it.

This is what happened. The true story. Alex Jones is right about Building 7, but he should not forget the above in regards to all of buildings in the Twin Tower Complex.

Again, it is my contention and stipulation that when those buildings were being constructed, shaped charges were set into the joints at key places....waiting for they day when the buildings were to be declared obsolete and to be demolished by the powers that be. This way, they could be taken down...one floor down onto the next...all the way to the ground. This is also the plan for those highest Twin Towers in the World that are standing in Asia.

What needs to done. Is for someone to get the "real" full constructions blue prints, building plans for those building in question. It may show, in detail, what I have said about them.

Robert L. Parish Sr.

[Dancing_Dave]

57. Part of the Truth

I've been corresponding with a New York City accountant about this, as well as frequenting some of the best scientific 9/11 sites such as
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html . If the whole WTC complex was destroyed as part of an insurance scam, then Larry Silverstein would be the key conspirator and benifactor in that. However, the profiteering story actually seems more complex, and Paul Gargano of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey may be an even more powerful player in the crime. He has connections in both the mafia and the Bush Regime, and his collaboration with such infamous Bush Regime figures as Karl Rove helped him get his fingers in the cookie jar when billions of federal dollars began pouring into New York City, post-9/11. Silverstein wouldn't have been able to secure a lease and numerous insurance policies to come out ahead unless he could strike a deal with Paul Gargano. So both of these guys knew what the Bush Regime had coming down the pike for them.

[nomatrix]

58. Remember this from NM

Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.
"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

Article printed in full the link no longer works.