Twin tower was demolished

PRO: "First off the topic was of debate was whether the Twin tower was demolished not who or how they did it ."If the towers were demolished with explosives, then someone must have done that. If the answer to "Who?" is nobody,then the towers were not demolished. Also, I do not think anyone would go through the effort of blowing up two towers, without having some reasons. If "Why?" does not have an answer, then the towers were not demolished.PRO: "You make a good point the tower does not look like a classic controlled demolition.The building had to be demolished from the top down, otherwise it would be too obvious. Building 7 which was not hit by a plane however was the classic controlled demolition. "Demolished from the top down? Have you any examples where a building was demolished like that? Can you post a video?But OK, suppose that in the unlikely event that someone planned the demolition from the top down. Then WHY did they make the demolition of building 7 look like a classical demolition? "The explosives were likely in the core 47 columns and elevator shafts of the tower protected from the explosion of the plane.The explosives were likely all throughout the building .The planes were likely remotely hijacked via remote control " This is pure speculation. I think all those things are very unlikely.Andreas von BuelowLet me first point out that he was "secretary of defense", but a secretary of defense in Germany is one of the 2 deputies to the minister of defense. He did write a book on a 9/11 conspiracy book, and sold lots of copies. I am not sure if he believes what he writes. His book consists of many unproven assertions, without providing a consistent alternative theory.http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)"The author admitted that much of the material came from the Internet and discharged the burden of proof by claiming that it was for the American government to refute the allegations rather than for him to prove them.[""There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..." Not a shred of evidence: von Buelow claimed that some of the hijackers were still alive. But:"If Below had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse." http://www.spiegel.de... "The third example concerns a supposedly ominous computer company in the town of Wentorf near Hamburg, where some of the later attackers and their friends worked. "There are said to be anonymous indications from secret service circles suggesting that the company may have been nothing more than a letterbox company," claims Bülow. Complete nonsense. Although the Hay Computing Company does have a letterbox, it's firmly attached to a red brick building in which flesh-and-blood employees actually perform real work. And the company has about as much to do with the secret services as this former German minister has to do with the truth: nothing. "It is not my job to develop a provable hypothesis," says Bülow, "I can only gather the pieces of the puzzle and state that this or that element happens to be unusual." "http://www.spiegel.de... Well, maybe I leave it at this. Andreas von Buelow is not credible. CON: Why fly the planes into the towers?PRO: For psychological warfare purposes, 'shock and awe'. Also to cover up the demolition of the towers.Well, I think blowing up the two towers would have been "shock and awe" enough. And why not fly a plane into building 7?If it was a cover up, it was a really bad one. This is not believable. PRO: "Really ? Dust is in the air, the dust is in the air and obviously not piliing up."I don't think the dust cloud we see at the tower's collapse is like regular dust in the air.It is a mixture of small and large debris, so much that of it that you cannot see through it.PRO: "Good question, and the answer is no one expected it to implode, so I and no one else can give you such a calculation . "No one expected airplanes to fly into the towers. There is very little precedent of airplanes flying into buildings, certainly not with large fuel-filled planes such as the Boeing 767. I would not be sure what to expect. Do you have any calculations that show you what must happen when a large airplane flies into a large building?Now back to:WHO?My opponent does not want to answer this question but he already has. If the American government has the technology of remote controlled airplanes, he is suggesting that the American government is behind this. (Which is also von Buelow's theory.)But this opens up a lot of questions. Mostly...WHY would the government of the USA do this? To justify a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? (This is von Buelow's theory.) Why then, would they put Saudi hijackers in their "remote controlled" airplanes? Why not a mixture of Iraqi's and Afghanistani's? The Bush administration had such a hard time justifying the war in Iraq.