9/11 Conspiracy: these explosives were planted where, exactly?

One of the fascinating things about the 9/11 "controlled demolition" theories is how much they take for granted. All the conspiracists' fuss about "squibs" and "explosion testimony" focuses on minutiae that glosses over some pretty big assumptions: if the WTC towers were destroyed by explosives, exactly where were these explosives planted, when, and perhaps most importantly, how come nobody noticed them before the disaster?

It's a fair question. Once you sign on to the belief that the towers were destroyed by explosives, you necessarily sign on to an assertion that somebody, somewhere, got inside the towers before 9/11 and planted the explosives there. But that's a pretty big assumption. You're talking about enough explosives to bring down the two largest office buildings in the world. Realistically, how long would this take, and it it even possible that it could have been done surreptitiously?

Destroying a building is no small thing. In real life, i.e., in non-conspiracy-land, controlled demolitions take months of preparation. Support beams must be carefully sawed through and explosives planted in exactly the right places so that the collateral damage to the site is minimal. In Seattle, the King Dome took months to wire before the trigger was pulled, and the same is true of various casinos in Vegas. So you're talking about a job of several months in duration. Exactly when was this supposed to have occurred in the case of the towers, then?

Conspiracists claim that there was a mysterious "power down" in one of the WTC towers, as reported by a witness named Scott Forbes. I could not find any corroboration of this report. Even if it's taken at face value, there's some serious problems with it. First of all, it refers to a loss of power, from the 50th floor up. For starters I find it extremely difficult to believe that one-half of one of the two largest office buildings in the world could be dark for 36 hours. If it happened, it would have made headline news, with all the banking headquarters and other offices in the WTC. If that happened, wouldn't it be a lot easier to find witnesses to corroborate Forbes's claim?

Secondly, what does a "power down" mean? OK, assume 50 floors are dark. Now a bunch of guys are going to come in and plant explosives? With no lights? No elevator power? How are they going to get the explosives on site? We're talking a lot of explosives. You're going to need trucks to get them to the towers, and certainly you need freight elevators to bring them 100 stories up. How are you going to get a freight elevator 50 floors up with no power? What, ropes and pulleys? Wouldn't somebody notice this massive operation? Wouldn't there be one witness? Just one?

Thirdly, what about floors 1-50, and the other tower? There was no report of a "power down" in the other WTC building, or in WTC7 which conspiracists insist was also "pulled." When were these explosives planted? You would need some bombs in the basement, right? (Conspiracists love Willie Rodriguez as one of their own. If you believe his testimony indicates controlled demolition, there had to be explosives in the basement, right?) If you think the "power down" indicates strange goings-on at the high levels, why wouldn't they have "powered down" the lower floors too? Hmm, maybe it's because a 36 hour loss of power in the entire WTC complex might have been noticed by witnesses. No such witnesses have come forward.

Fourth, 36 hours to do all of this: are you kidding me? You'd be lucky to do it in 36 days. What about the sawing through of the structural beams? The conspirators would be foolhardy to rely on explosives alone, unless they had so many truckloads of them to make it completely foolproof, which, as described in the above paragraph, is not likely. If it takes weeks to wire the King Dome, do you really think you can get the WTC towers, plus Building 7, all ready to go in 36 hours? While people are working their normal jobs all around you? While the people doing the wiring have to go about it surreptitiously?

Does this make any sense to you?

The most damning evidence that the towers were not demolished is the lack of any evidence of the explosives being discovered prior to 9/11.

Consider it. The two largest buildings in the world, plus Building 7, all sitting there, chock full of explosives, with their structural beams carefully sawed through, just waiting for Larry Silverstein or George Bush or Justin Timberlake or whoever plotted it to pull the trigger.

You've got 100,000 people going about their daily business in those towers--office workers, managers, security guards, janitors, electricians, IT staff, waiters, busboys, mail room clerks and maintenance guys. People opening closets and going into basements, cleaning bathrooms and unlocking storage cabinets in little-used offices.

Not one of these 100,000 people notices a wire where it shouldn't be, or a block of plastique taped to the wall?

Not one?

Conspiracists love to trumpet misinterpeted and fraudulent descriptions of what happened on 9/11 as "evidence" of controlled demolition. Willie Rodriguez is a perfect example. But for every "eyewitness account" who describes what they call "explosions," I am aware of no single witness who says he or she discovered any of the explosives before the disaster, or who saw people going around planting them. This is the evidence conspiracists should be looking for. Not Willie Rodriguez.

Think about it before you assume that the towers were wired. It's a major flaw in the conspiracy theory, and one which, six years on, has not yet been adequately addressed.