pancake worked for me
There's been a LOT of really, REALLY interesting speculation (backed up by plausible explanations) about this for a really long time, and I'm still undecided.
September 6th, 2006 12:19pm
Yeah, except that if it were true, the world would be a different place.
Are we REALLY to believe that these same people that can't get anything right in Iraq are capable of something like this? Are we to believe that the biggest crime in American history--the massacre of thousands, requiring the participation of hundreds--could even begin to be covered up? And so on.
I hate Bush and his ilk with a passion, but even I think this is incredible.
I don't think it requires the participation of that many people. Bush doesn't even have to know about it. It could be a dozen people in the FBI/CIA/NSA, a few contractors, and a hitman or two for afterwards.
I think you underestimate what very few people can potentially pull off.
September 6th, 2006 12:24pm
I think you underestimate what very few people can potentially pull off."
Yep, we are never going to know.
From what I know of the CIA they have done some pretty fucked up shit and control alot.
what are you reading for?
September 6th, 2006 12:33pm
Oh, come on. Two fully loaded (with Aviation Gasoline) airliners fly into the middle of two towers. Are you really surprised they didn't build the towers to withstand that much heat?
The wonder is that the towers didn't 'tilt' and fall like Jack's Beanstalk, but instead mostly imploded.
But NOBODY is making up the pictures of the airliners flying into the towers, right? I mean, that really honest to God happened. So did the one at the Pentagon, for that matter. You think hundreds of people are gonna die at the Pentagon just to make the CIA look good?
September 6th, 2006 12:43pm
So the fact that airliners inarguably flew into the buildings precludes any sort of covert involvement of anyone within the US government?
September 6th, 2006 12:44pm
I think it is much more plausible that the CIA found out about the plan already in place outside of their control and did nothing or helped things along a bit.
Sure, and that fits the theories about controlled demolition nicely. They wanted a spectacle, but they didn't want to take down the entire island in the process.
September 6th, 2006 12:52pm
Wait a minute.
We're talking about the murder of thousands of your fellow citizens. People who *aren't your enemy*. People you've sworn to protect. Now, I can image one or two psychopaths who'd go ahead and kill under these circumstances... but how many are we talking about here? No one leaks? No one cracks? No one suffers from remorse and spills the beans?
I don't buy it.
Do you honestly think that the guys in power sit around thinking about how to keep you, you personally, safe? No, they want the economy to keep rolling so that their investments keep paying dividends. They don't give half a shit about you, your family, or your grandmother's roommate. We're herd animals to them.
September 6th, 2006 12:58pm
The big problem is covering it up.
September 6th, 2006 1:03pm
"He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers."
Seems easy enough to verify/disprove to me.
wheeeee ~~~~~~~ x
September 6th, 2006 1:05pm
Fuck no. Say 10 guys are in on it. They hire some crooked demolitions contractors to get the buildings ready. They have govt clearance, so buiding security gives them a pass while they plant small explosive devices in key areas of the building.
Then you hire a hitman for a FUCKLOAD of money to cap the contractors. If you're REALLY paranoid and you're the head dude, you cap the other 9, too. Maybe one has a heart attack, one commits suicide, one drowns on his cruise. You don't even have to get them all in the same year, you can bet that they'll at least keep quiet while they're young so as not to implicate themselves. You just don't let them get to a ripe, unencumbered old age where they're likely to spill.
September 6th, 2006 1:05pm
Could you just find something that burns hotter than steel but can be triggered by airline fuel and plant in boxes full of it in strategic places in something innocuous looking like bottles of cleaner?
That's where I'd look, any odd contracting/cleaning expenses in the months leading up to 9/11.
But I'm not a conspiracy nut. Nope. Not at all. Doesn't remind me of Hitler or make me think of Dicoletian's problem/reaction/solution. Nope.
Anyway, everyone knows you need to be a little OCD to become something like a physics professor, and I think this guy has latched on to a theory and obsessed over it.
The fact that one guy's argument is nonsense, or refutable, does not invalidate every valid point that has been made over time about this.
IIRC, the temperature issue has been addressed. Steel doesn't have to MELT in order to collapse.
September 6th, 2006 1:17pm
>> Could you just find something that burns hotter than steel but can be triggered by airline fuel and plant in boxes full of it in strategic places in something innocuous looking like bottles of cleaner? <<
Because of the construction used in the towers, this really isn't possible. They would have to be stacked along the central core of the building on multiple floors. And someone would notice boxes and boxes of "Foamy-Brite Cleaner" stacked along the interior walls.
WRT the airline fuel not getting hot enough -- what essentially happened was a fuel/air bomb. And they get pretty damned hot. Plus, the explosion blew the foamed-concrete fire retardent off the steel beams, so they were exposed directly to the flames.
In short, the conspiracy nuts need to concentrate on what they do best -- speculating who was on the grassy knoll -- and not dreaming up shit. The next thing you know, they'll be claiming that the SDI orbital weapons platforms shot the buildings with super high-powered particle beams.
September 6th, 2006 1:26pm
Yeah, the steel didn't need to melt, it just needed to lose a bunch of it's strength.
The funny thing to me is that Stephen Jones, the physicist from BYU was about the only one who wasn't discredited back when Pons and Fleischmann "discovered" cold fusion.
September 6th, 2006 1:56pm
Whatever happened to Occam's razor?
That was also blown up by the CIA agents, it's been a thorn in their sides for years.
September 6th, 2006 2:58pm
I think if a group of reasonably intelligent people were planning a 21st Century Pearl Harbor, they would talk about having planes fly into the twin towers. There would be no discussion about bringing the buildings down, because:
1) Nobody would think that a plane hitting a tower around the 80th floor would bring it down
2) Given (1), nobody would want to try to bring it down otherwise
3) Any demolitions expert will tell you that an attempt to do a controlled demolition properly would make it blazingly obvious in advance what you're trying to do - the charges would have to be all over the place, along support members that were nearly inaccessible. And a lot of people did come out of the towers - has anyone mentioned "an unusual amount of construction or contract work before hand"?
Nope - I think all of 9/11 is exactly what the standard story is - 19 men took control of four aircraft and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. The "inside job" part I wonder about is who organized it and funded them. If I were to believe the administration orchestrated this, that's the point I think they would've been involved.
September 6th, 2006 5:17pm
>The wonder is that the towers didn't 'tilt' and fall like Jack's Beanstalk, but instead mostly imploded.<
Conservation of momentum. Compare the relative weights of the colliding objects.
The simplest explanation of how it happened is loss of steel strength through prolonged exposure to heat (want to see? just heat a poker to cherry red and hit it hard with a hammer - then you'll have to hit it again to push it back into shape before it cools). Then the towers "pancaked".
Why it happened is a juicy secret.
September 7th, 2006 4:10am