[kj] interview

[Mark Kolmar]

> Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your post, Mark, but are you suggesting
> that the detonation that ultimately took the towers down *MAY NOT* have been
> the result of the impact of the planes, but rather the result of some
> already-implanted hidden device within the towers prior to the planes
> hitting?

Not so much a suggestion as a confession of a small question-mark in my
mind.  But I do not think the devices would have been in place before the
planes hitting.  Rather, I am wondering out loud whether those buildings,
which would have to be imploded regardless, might have been imploded
earlier rather than later.

In the most innocent situation, if the towers were going to come down
anyway, I am glad they came down shortly after the planes hit.

The question, then, is: Could the towers have been imploded deliberately
and early, to make it appear the planes caused them to fall.  That's a
question, not an assertion.  But for some sick minds, I wonder whether
they could rationalize that X lives were already lost, and sacrifice of Y
additional lives would gain such-and-such extra advantage from the
situation -- like some type of sick lemonade-from-lemons deal.

I think it is more likely this is *not* the case.  But at worst it is an
exercise in wondering again whether a lie can be so big that people will
believe it.

If footage of the collapse shows the top floors crashing down, and the
buildings collapsing from the top down, then it surely makes sense the
fire and resulting structural damage caused the buildings to fold like an
accordion.  My memory is fuzzy, so I have to admit ignorance on this.  At
the time I saw footage, I was not watching with an eye toward those
details.

Anyone have a link to that footage?  Actually, I've got a CD-ROM from
Chicago Tribune that might have it....

--Mark