Was the Purpose of Pre-CD Explosions to Divert Attention from Controlled Demolition?
The evidence seems to be incontrovertible that all three of the WTC Towers had pre-controlled-demolition explosives that were set off in apparently random fashion on the morning of 9/11. The perpetrators seem to have had a plan or purpose for doing this, as it does not seem plausible that they were set off by accident. That begs the question: Why? On the surface, it would seem that setting off some of the explosives prematurely was risky because it would make it more obvious that explosives were pre-planted. But perhaps they were set off to divert attention from the bigger event - the high-tech controlled demolitions. Since so much of what went on that day seems to have been done for the purpose of creating diversions, such as the planes and fake hijackings being used to divert attention from the more important events (which killed more people) that would seem to require an "inside job" aspect to pull off, these "diversionary" pre-CD explosions would seem to fit into the same theme.
There are multiple witnesses who describe explosives going off in the lower levels of the Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Many of these people describe the elevators exploding and extensive damage to the lobbies and basements. This would seem to indicate that the explosions that occurred prior to the controlled demolition sequences were from explosives planted inside the buildings, rather than outside or from truck bombs. The fact that all 3 controlled demolitions of the 3 towers subsequently went off successfully in perfect sequence, that would seem to indicate that the pre-CD explosions did not go off by accident. The perps apparently set them off on purpose. My current working theory is that the perps set them off in a seemingly uncontrolled fashion in order to make it appear more plausible that low-tech "Islamic terrorists" planted bombs that, along with the official fire-induced collapse theory, led to the total destruction of the buildings, if at some point in the future people were to question why the buildings totally collapsed in what looked like controlled demolitions.
This way, fakes like Jon Gold could then go run around and claim that bombs may have been planted by the designated Muslim Boogeymen, while rejecting the notion of a high-tech controlled demolition. This would explain why Jon is strangely good friends with Willy Rodriguez - you know, the guy who goes around talking about explosions in the tower he was in? (see William Rodriguez Supports Official Collapse Theory on Spanish TV) It's strange because Jon has never shown any love for any cd advocates ever...oh wait a minute...that's right: Willy Rodriguez is not a cd advocate. He naver speaks about cd in his presentations, only bombs while he apparently supports the official collapse theory. He also supports the official hijacker theory, and even participates in gilding the lily by claiming that he saw one of the hijackers casing the building before 9/11, and asking about bathrooms...uh huh. So, that's my take on what's going on.
What say you truthers?
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
I think this exchange says it all
"Bombs in the building is different than CD" "A bomb does not equal Controlled Demolition", says Jon Gold. Jon is apparently ok with the truth movement talking about "bombs", but not cd.
This was from 911Blogger from about a year ago. (Eleusus, now banned from 911Blogger, was me). At the time, I was disputing what Jon was claiming about Willie supporting the existence of bombs but not cd. Now I realize Jon was speaking the truth about his friend Willie...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20920
Your list...
Of "giants" differs from mine. Did you know that Willie Rodriguez doesn't support CD? Bombs in the building is different than CD. The question of how those buildings came down is ABSOLUTELY a question that needs to be answered. However, the question doesn't define the cause of 9/11 Truth.
The "research" I assume you're talking about (anything other than how those buildings came down), for the most part (with the exception of a missile at the Pentagon, Flight 93 being shot down, and a "stand down" order), like the majority of this, has been completely and totally ignored by "the perpetrators and their propaganda octopus." I wonder why.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 9:51am.
» login to post comments | 2 points
Our list
That's just the point, I quoted "your" because I think all of this is actually "our" research. I simply don't make the distinction. I think the 9/11 truth movement has matured to the point where it can distinguish between genuine and unresolved/controversial avenues of research. I would say that is certainly the case for 911blogger. There may be some heated discussions, but generally people are well versed in the subject matter by now. The Pentagon may remain deeply divisive, but the number of divisive topics has dwindled.
When discussing 9/11, I often mention the plight of the families and first responders, the protection of double/triple agents such as Ali Mohamed, the failure of the 9/11 commission, the financial crimes of 9/11, the EPA lies, the prior knowledge issue, the geopolitical agenda tied to 9/11, the role of foreign intelligence, the vague nature of the "Al Qaeda" network, the various conflicts of interest with government figures linked to 9/11, et cetera et cetera.
Of course, I'm sure we can all agree that we haven't covered election fraud, wiretapping and anthrax enough either, which are all powerful and deeply disturbing issues to be faced. The bigger picture is that of rising totalitarianism. I reject a single issue movement, but I do support the CD researchers. I haven't blindly followed, but attempted to verify claims with what physics and chemistry knowledge I have. This also involves "neutral" parties, such as RJ Lee and the USGS. The RJ Lee reports are as devastating to the OCT as the work of J.O.N.E.S. and AE911Truth is, imo.
The main stream media doesn't focus on controlled demolition research because it's a weak argument, but because within this argument lie both threats and opportunities: the threat being scientific certainty: absolute proof of active and malicious government involvement, and the opportunity being that the discussion lends itself perfectly for logical fallacies and proof by intimidation. (I.e. stacked odds, TNRAT, argument from authority, and most of all, relying on the poor educational system to do the rest)
Scientific research is only one avenue of 9/11 research but it offers quantified insights into the likelihood of a government conspiracy, whereas non-quantifiable research depends on the public's sensitivity to ethics to drive the point home: i.e. acceptability. I think the ideal approach is a combination of both.
As for William Rodriguez: I don't know exactly where he stands, but I do know this
Submitted by SnowCrash on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 10:40am.
» login to post comments | -2 points
I do know where Willie stands...
And he doesn't support or promote the idea of a "Controlled Demolition." Does he support those who question how those buildings came down? You bet. Some of us have promoted that which you mentioned. Too many times to count.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 10:46am.
» login to post comments | 1 point
Since when does William Rodriguez NOT support CD?
That is an outrageous claim Jon that needs to be backed up by some strong evidence such as Mr. Rodriguez saying it himself. I have met William twice and attended his lecture twice and saw NOTHING in his presentation that contradicts CD. He is very specific about a BOMB going off prior to the plane impact so how you can even suggest he does not support CD is bizarre to me. What is going on here Jon? Please clarify this statement.
Submitted by AtomicBomb on Sat, 08/22/2009 - 8:06am.
» login to post comments | 1 point
A bomb...
Does not equal Controlled Demolition. Willie has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition with regards to his story. He just TELLS his story. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. I have asked Willie to come here, and speak for himself. Whether or not he does, is up to him.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Sat, 08/22/2009 - 8:30am.
» login to post comments | 0 points
You are implying William rejects CD.
Just because he does not openly talk about or promote the CD evidence during his talks does not mean he rejects CD Jon. He simply doesn't talk about it because it is beyond the scope of his experience that day. The way you characterize him is as though he does not think there was a CD at all which is wrong (unless I hear otherwise from William himself). Saying he "has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition" leads people to think you are saying he rejects the CD idea altogether. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to understand? Saying he doesn't talk about CD during his lectures but takes no position on CD positive or negative would be accurate and not so misleading.
One further point is that William does talk about bombs in the basement which is VERY close to an outright endorsement of CD so for you to make this distinction about bombs and CD being two completely different things is a huge stretch.
In my book William Rodriguez is the very definition of hero so I pay very close attention to him and what he says. Nothing I have ever heard from him suggests even a tiny bit that he rejects the CD concept so I don't know why you are even saying "Willie has NEVER promoted Controlled Demolition" unless it is to imply that he rejects CD. Is that what you are saying Jon? According to you does William Rodriguez reject CD?
Submitted by AtomicBomb on Sun, 08/23/2009 - 5:09am.
"Willie Rodriguez doesn't support CD"
That is patently false. I challenge you to back up this claim. I've met Willie and attended his presentation and I have no idea how you can come up with such a claim.
"Bombs in the building is different than CD."
???
Jon, are you actually going to argue the logic in which you believe that bombs were in the building but still reject CD?
Submitted by Eleusus on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:09pm.
» login to post comments | 0 points
I talk to Willie...
All of the time. I just saw his new movie. It was great. No mention of a "Controlled Demolition" in it though. Maybe you should ask Willie yourself what he believes. I already know.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:14pm.
» login to post comments | 2 points
"No mention of controlled demolition"
does not mean that he does not believe it. His movie was about his personal experience with the explosions, he doesn't need to discuss the technical science of CD, it's already a given and assumed to be a reality.
Please provide a link to prove that Willie does not believe in CD. If he doesn't believe in CD, what does he theorize about the explosions?
Submitted by Eleusus on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:32pm.
» login to post comments | -1 points
I don't have a "link"
I know from the multitude of conversations that we've had. Again, ask him yourself. He's not a hard person to find. I can see that you're one of those argumentative posters, so I've decided to avoid you. Take care.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:40pm.
» login to post comments | 1 point
If he does not believe in cd...
what is his theory about the explosives planted in the buildings?
Submitted by Eleusus on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:40pm.
» login to post comments | 0 points
As far as I know...
He doesn't claim to "know" what happened in those buildings. He DOES NOT promote the idea of a "Controlled Demolition," and NEVER has. He tells his story, and that's it. As I said earlier, he supports those who are looking into how those buildings came down, but he DOES NOT endorse or promote Controlled Demolition. Now, if you have any further questions about Willie Rodriguez, I suggest you ask him.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 3:48pm.
a different theory
My interpretation of the bombs or rather demo charges going off ahead of the cd collapse is that they were just timed ahead of the rest of the demo charges in preparation for the later.
If they were planned from the start to be blamed on Muslim patsies, I think there would have been a stronger effort to sell that narrative early on. I would expect that we would have been presented with a charade by now with security cameras showing the patsies entering the buildings with heavy bags or some other bullshit. The belated effort to link Muslim terrorists to the bombs makes me think it was an ad hoc effort to divert attention from CD.
If they were part of the demo sequence
they should have gone off only seconds before the rest of the charges. But with all three towers, the premature explosions occurred not seconds before, but up to an hour/hour and a half prematurely in towers 1 and 2, and up to 8 hours prematurely in the case of tower 7. How could they have screwed up so bad in all 3 towers? It's like they were setting the premature charges off on purpose and wanted people to notice them. If it was just in preparation for the later demolitions, they brought completely unnecessary attention to their sinister plans and got everybody talking about pre-planted explosives. If it was not necessary to time the charges to go off more than a few seconds before the rest, why would they unnecessarily but purposely bring peoples attention to pre-planted explosives in such a blatant way?
that was me that posted as
that was me that posted as anon. i have no good explanation why charges were set to go off much earlier than actual CD. But you can say the same for wtc7, why time it so late when they could have done it same time as the closest tower. maybe the system was just imperfect
Building 7 was likely meant
Building 7 was likely meant to be hit by 93. When it became clear that could not happen it had to be "pulled". Just my opinion.
i have always wondered about this
the lapse in time, etc.
didn't somebody here talk about Flight 93 ..the plan was for it to hit 7 shortly after the pulverization had cleared of 1 and 2. the decision was made to "pull it" because no plane hit it and because of its contents/tenants.
agreed
Thats exactly what I said yesterday but my anonymous comments didn't show up. I think it was meant to be hit by a plane but when it was clear that was not possible they just "pulled" it anyway. The air force unintentionally gave 9/11 activists a huge assist on that one imho. Now we have the obvious CD that was WTC7 on video for all to see.
thanks Kate and Chris, I
thanks Kate and Chris,
I read that before and forgot about it. It is a plausible explanation.
Back on topic though do you think the early explosions were diversions? What would support such?
William Rodriguez is perhaps the closest to supporting such a plan, he being consistently in support of explosions early on but not supporting CD.
On the other hand if you have three planes meant to do their grand illusion, why bother with obvious planted explosives.
Now this train of thought brings me to another theory, what if explosives were meant as a backup plan in case the planes did not arrive at WTC.
Think about it. If none of the planes got to New York, they would still have three buildings wired to go down with no obvious story to blame on Muslim terrorists. They can't just not pull it off, the buildings would be too difficult to remove the live explosives from without anyone finding out and team that put it in would probably bail out rather than go in and unwire it.
There can be any number of reasons for the planes not to reach the targets, so it is very prudent to have a backup plan just in case.
That second plan could be to blame terrorists with bombs in the buildings. There would be a disconnect if you bring this narrative out after the planes hit. But should the planes have failed, then it would be the logical backup plan.
Your thoughts about them
Your thoughts about them being a back-up plan sound plausible enough to me. The perps couldn't have been totally sure that the planes/drones would reach their destinations. The buildings needed to come down whether they did or not. Had the planes been shot down the "planted bombs" would have been used as the explanation for the total destruction of the towers. And they would no doubt still claim that a plane hit the Pentagon, thus preserving the "act of war" aspect of the 9/11 fraud along with the insurance fraud of "terrorist acts" at the WTC.
lower level explosions speculative theory
They were timed to coincide with the airplane impacts and removed some of the core structure. Perhaps this was sort of like notching a tree on one side before you take it down from the other, so that you can best control the angle of descent. And perhaps combining these explosions with the later would have been TOO obvoius, so covering for them with the airplane impacts was intended to make these seismic booms less noticable.