How the building collapsed??

By now we all know that the buildings collapsed because of explosives. The question we have to ask is how they managed to place all the explosives
without someone notice?
It probably took place a lot of work during the power-out.

I'm no expert on this and I don't know if this has been talked about before. I was looking at this movie:

And in a interview about 36 minutes in to it they say this:

"One of the towers had a major elevator that went all the way up to the top
that was malfunctioning, and had been malfunktioning for at least a month.
They have been having a lot of trouble with that"

If the elevator that went all the way to the top was not used for a mounth, it gave them alot of time to place explosives to the core !!??

I really hope that someone look into this!!

/ from a worried swedish citizen

Utilizing 1 or more elevators to carry the explosives...

sounds very plausible to me. Thanks for the information.

I don't think we know what

I don't think we know what technology was used to bring down the buildings. The twin towers especially weren't conventional demolitions; explosives of some type were used, sure, but can you rule out the possibility of new, exotic weaponry that doesn't require the same placement of charges that a conventional demolition does?

"The twin towers especially weren't conventional demolitions"

"The twin towers especially weren't conventional demolitions"

That's true.

For one, "conventional" controlled demolitions don't start at the top.

So in that way, the Twin Towers's destructions were "controlled demolition with a twist" in any case, having been started from the top, blowing apart one floor after the other.

But what explosive exactly was it that brought the buildings down, and which new or old technology they used is of secondary importance for me at this point in time.

OTOH, the third WTC Tower going down on that day (a.k.a. WTC7) looked like conventional controlled demolition very much.

All we need to stress is all the contradictions and lies which are intertwined with the official story. We have proven the official story to be a Big Lie, and we continue to do so without needing to (nor attempting to) establishing a waterproof alternative story.

(We can't establish and proof 100%, and beyond doubt at this point in time the True Story in each and every detail. A new investigation needs to be run for establishing the positive truth, and a new "Nuremberg Trial"....)

Maybe we sometimes are too much stereotype-like with our short statements in discussions, and sometimes plain wrong. I sometimes think we should not always say "the buildings went down exactly into their footprint". I heard and read that often, but this is not true. The buildings WTC1 and WTC2 did spread their debris quite far around their own footprint (like you expect from a series of explosions that take apart each floor, one by one). And the 2-3 inch finely powdered dust that the explosions created were covering every square inch of surfaces on many square miles of Lower Manhattan and beyond....

Unfortunately we don't have

Unfortunately we don't have a lot to work with on the issue of how and when the explosives were planted. I think we should stop assuming that the bombs were planted during the power down. The power down could have been completely unrelated or even a distracter. The bombs could have been setup years before when Bush's relations were on the board of directors for the security firm at the WTC's. We just don't know yet. Bush's relations left about a year before 9/11. And this is all assuming that they had some part in 9/11. We need more info. We need interviews from as many people as possible who worked in the buildings. Custodians and engineers with access to different parts of the building would be a good place to start, If any one would notice something going on in the building that was suspicious it would be them.

I really think we just don't have enough evidence at the moment to conclude that the demolitions were planted during the power down.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)