The recent New York Times article on 9/11 implies that controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would have been impossible, because no one could have snuck in all of the explosive equipment.

I, and many others, have previously addressed this issue. I am re-posting this essay in light of the Times’ hit piece on this issue.

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?

Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:

“I don’t believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?”

In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
• The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
• There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
• And — as an interesting coincidence — a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.

These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives.”

In addition to these facts, demolition and building collapse experts have purportedly raised the possibility of “explosive tenants” — i.e. tenants in the World Trade Centers who planted bombs in their own, rented space. For example, according to Webster Tarpley and others, Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:

“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.”

The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.”

Source: 9/11 Blogger

The recent New York Times article on 9/11 implies that controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would have been impossible, because no one could have snuck in all of the explosive equipment.

I, and many others, have previously addressed this issue. I am re-posting this essay in light of the Times’ hit piece on this issue.

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?

Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:

“I don’t believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?”

In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
• The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
• There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
• And — as an interesting coincidence — a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.

These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives.”

In addition to these facts, demolition and building collapse experts have purportedly raised the possibility of “explosive tenants” — i.e. tenants in the World Trade Centers who planted bombs in their own, rented space. For example, according to Webster Tarpley and others, Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:

“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.”

The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.”

Source: 9/11 Blogger