What was President Bush's motive for demolishing the World Trade Center?

Question

Three buildings collapsed. One plane each struck only two. The third was not hit by anything. If you examine the footage, you can see plainly that they were the result of a controlled demolition. The way the buildings crimp inward is the result of set charges being fired to blow the primary supports so that the building will collapse inward on top of itself. It is the same method used in every demolition of every tall building everywhere. The firefighters reported seeing pools of molten steel in the sub-basements for weeks afterward. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel molten. It burns about 500 degrees cooler than is required to melt steel. How can this be explained? Why would President Bush want to kill innocent Americans and begin a war based on a heinous lie?

Answer 1

how on earth can u believe such nonsense

Answer 2

Firstly, Bush is a puppet and whoever really organised 911 certainly did so years in advance.

To focus on towers one and two, I've seen and studied the youtube footage on the 'demolition'. I'm not fully convinced though. The twin towers were constructed differently to older more conventional concrete frame structures, to which the WTC collapses have been compared.

As you state, aviation fuel burns at 500 degrees cooler than required to melt the steel. There are still reasons why the structure may have failed. The initial impacts of the planes hit the exoskeleton and the core, significantly weakening both. The fire was started by the fuel but the burning a cocktail of substances within the building could have caused areas to burn hotter than the fuel itself. This could explain the failing of the inner core. A large building fire will create vibrations that if close to the resonant frequency of the structure, will cause more damage.

Its worth noting that almost all tower demolition jobs are on concrete frame structures. Assuming the inner structure failed first, then the way the buildings collapsed is entirely plausible. The weakened exoskeleton would have been carrying all the weight at this point and once it ruptured[at the first point where the collapse occured] the columns would have all failed simultaneously, due to the weight of 110 floors. This can be seen on close inspection where the whole thing 'rips' starting from a single column. There appears to be no outward blast until after this point. Also, lining the entire building with explosives would be an extremely difficult, even impossible operation without getting caught 'red handed' so to speak.

The outward puffs of gas are easily explained as the collapsing storeys all contain air and other materials which needs to escape somehow. Notice this is not mentioned on the youtube videos. Also the speed at which the building fell is consistent with physics baring in mind that it is not the conventional concrete frame building, which would have taken longer to fall and couldn't have collapsed inward without the help of explosives.

WTC7 on the other hand would have been weakened by the first two collapses and was on fire inside. Again, the internal materials that were present would dictate the heat of the fire. Maybe the molten metal was not steel? I guess we'll never know for sure.

Anything I have said above does not detract from the idea that it was known or even setup internally. To find those responsible we have to look at the possible motives and those with the abilities to do so. Injecting fear into society appears to be the central motive. CIA certainly knew something was up and may have blood on their hands. The Zeitgeist movie suggests the hidden leaders of the central bank are responsible, as war earns them more money. Israeli secret services are the other possible suspects, for obvious reasons. But for all the finger pointing, if bin laden didn't do it, why wouldn't he deny responsibility?

My own belief is that all of the above are responsible in one way or another and due to their secret natures and states inability to prosecute we'll probably never truly know.

Answer 3

To start Cold War II - a pearl beyond price. (Perpetual war economy; internal social control - look how the lid has been screwed down; pretext for attacking any country they want: 'soft on terrorism or whatever'.) Incidentally the Project For the New American Century said they needed a Pearl Harbor.

On the jet fuel temperature thing: if the heat cannot escape it builds up indefinitely, surely. Doesn't the argument assume that the heat can escape as it wishes?

Answer 4

You cannot set up a full scale demolition of a building in secret, hundreds of pounds of explosives, holes and breaks in support structures and access to primary building supports.. It would have been noticed. After the 9/11, they DID demolish some because of collapse hazards.

As far as jet fuel not burning enough to melt steel, that may be true, but put it inside a brick and concrete "oven" and the heat builds up. This is how a wood shed fire can melt and burn an aluminum lawn mower to a puddle. I have seen, as a firefighter, steel beams slag and buckle under the heat of a normal room and contents fire.

Also, demolition does not leave molten steel, it used the high order explosive and shock wave to shatter matterials.

As for why President Bush would want to kill innocent Americans on a heinous lie:? My thoughts on this are, why would you want to continue spreading false and misleading stories that are able to be easily refuted. Is your heinous version of a lie for profit or just to troll around in here and stir up crap?

Answer 5

Come back to reality and do some research that DOESN'T support your silly assumptions. Try some objectivity for a change. You might actually learn something.

I'm sure you won't look at this link because you're foolishly locked into what you WANT to believe, but if you've got any intelligence at all here it is ==>http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Answer 6

According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. The most detailed statements of the hypothesis, which has become a central theme for members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, have come from physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and author Webster Griffin Tarpley. In making their case, they often emphasize the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane.

An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rejected the hypothesis, as have most structural and mechanical engineers
With few exceptions, the controlled demolition hypothesis is unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers. Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an explanation of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the mainstream consensus as presented in the NIST report, Bažant and Verdure note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. They trace "strange ideas" about, among other things, controlled demolition, to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While, strictly speaking, superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Moreover, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not in fact two separate modes of failure.

Other engineers, such as Thomas Eagar, have also dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the prevailing view in the engineering community about the collapses. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Leslie Robertson, who helped design the Twin Towers, debated Steven Jones on a radio program in December 2006.

When Steven Jones made his hypothesis public, Brigham Young University professor D. Allan Firmage responded that he had "studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers, and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft." Having read Jones' paper, and based on his "understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel", Firmage found "Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."

Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis, noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation.

Answer 7

the answer is Black Gold my friend, which is OIL!
if there was no 9/11, then what could be the excuse to capture or occupy two oil rich countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

also may I ask you to think about the innocent Iraqis and Afghans being killed in this war, not just Americans and British

Answer 8

Face it, this man's policies were not popular. All of a sudden, he is a "great and popular President." This happens after he is "angry" about what happened to us as Americans. I have "no proof" to indicate the involvement of Mr. Bush in the "World Trade Center catastrophe." A "very weak" minded person will do anything to gain prestige, even if he/she has to "kill and injure others" to gain attention. Now, rumor has it, that America wants to go over to Iran and start a war. Our American people, young and old, need a chance to live on the "homefront" and develop right here. Everytime I look up, we are losing our folk to wars that on "foreign soil." I wish you well. Peace, Love and God Bless.

Answer 9

I always thought that Americans didn't live on planet earth. Now I'm sure of it.

Answer 10

He wouldn't. Only extremely gullible anti Republicans could possibly believe such drivel.

Answer 11

It does not take an expert to see that the buildings imploded. The buildings were riddled with asbestos and needed expensive repairs. Why not blow it up, claim insurance and blame someone else. The insurance company was connected to the bush family as were the companies that came in to clear up........ They also could not afford to re insure the buildings because of the condition they were in......