GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by lch

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire. You really believe that's what happened? Why in that case doesn't the fire department admit that there was a controlled demolition?

[Slaughtermeyer]

To clarify my previous post, I agree with you that there was a controlled demolition but I believe that the demolition charges were placed prior to 9/11 on the orders of someone who knew that the 9/11 attacks would take place. This is why the fire department refuses to admit that there was a controlled demolition.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Slaughtermeyer

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire.

As I said, I didn't really read the article much, nor did I read it again now, but from what I grasped from it the building never really was on fire, or at least not critically so that it would have made trouble to place the charges. They wanted the building out of the way so that the fire wouldn't get there and spread around from there. The same like they'd remove pastures in the event of bush fires, even going as far as burning the grass down in a controlled way, so that it doesn't spread over there.