Originally posted by shetline
As if the "alternate explanations" are better?
Why rig the WTC with explosives when you're planning on slamming planes into the buildings anyway? What nefarious political and/or economic motive would require assuring that the buildings fall down, no matter what? Yes, Bush and many others benefited enormously from the tragedy of 9/11, but planes slamming into buildings alone would have done the job, or blowing up the WTC without using planes would have been quite sufficient.
The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707, of a similar dimension to the 767s which hit on 9-11. The perps, knowing the Twin Towers were designed as such, would have been well aware that the impacts of planes might not have sufficient to bring the buildings down
. If either of the buildings had remained standing, the remains of the planes would have been recovered, and that, one would imagine, is something the perps would have wanted to avoid?
What do you imagine? The planes were needed for grand showmanship,
Grand showmanship, namely the live and subsequent multiple repeated images of a 767 jet slamming into a building is exactly what fueled the public shock, horror and revulsion which enabled the pre-desired "Long War" aka War n Terror. Cui Bono? Surely not the Muslim community?
and the ensured collapse was needed by real estate developers who wanted to build something new? Given the long delays redeveloping the WTC site, those evil real estate developers don't seem to have thought this out ahead of time very well.
Considering that the entire site is now a graveyard, I can see why there have been delays. IMHO, I feel the site should remain as such, with no development whatsoever. (But thats just my "metaphysical" take on it).
I will grant that the collapse of WTC 7 still seems kind of odd,
"Kinda odd". Not at all! Leaseholder Larry Silverstein told everyone
how WTC#7 collapsed on a PBS show. But the MSM has never taken him up on it. Why not? Interestingly, the explanation in the above link touches on the "pull it" comment, and how that term is not necessarily synomymous with "demolition". But to what else would he have been referring?
The fires on floors 7 and 12 were small. If a 47 story building can collapse (initiating from the basement) in such a perfectly symmetrical fashion at free-fall acceleration, then one would imagine the architects and construction contractors would be immersed in a long drawn out series of lawsuits, with allegations of gross negligence, breaches of code, etc etc. But nothing...silence. From the performance of this building, if such a fire was solely responsible for that skyscaper's demise, one would be fearful that any
highrise fire would put any city center in extreme jeopardy. There are dozens of cases of much hotter, longer-lasting and much larger (in some cases from the base right to the top of the building).. and on each occasion, the buildings remained structurally sound and remained standing. On no occasion in history has a modern concrete and steel highrise collapsed due to fire.
but there's nothing at all strange about the collapse of the twin towers. From what I've heard, those who seem to think "alternate explanations" are needed tend to focus on single causes. The impact wouldn't have been enough! The fire wouldn't have been enough! The idea that, oh, massive structural damage plus fire (which only has to slightly soften structural support to cause problems -- melting steel is not required) would be enough to destroy these buildings doesn't seem to occur these people.
(1) Both of the Twin Towers collapsed in under 10 seconds, ie freefall speed. This contravenes the law of conservation of momentum if a purely gravity induced collapse.See detailed explanation by Prof. Steven Jones
I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for thinking it took more than those two planes to bring down the twin towers, nor have I heard any alternate explanations that weren't based on misunderstandings of the physics involved and/or citations of supposedly suspicious details (Look at that puff of smoke on frame 1:10:27! How did Mr. X on floor Y survive?") which really aren't that suspicious at all on further examination.
Even if there was any truth in the official "pancake collapse" explanation, the towers would have taken far longer than 10 seconds to collapse. Simple explanation here
Significantly, the 911 Commission must have known there is a scientific/mathematical problem with the "Pancake theory" because in order to bolster that official claims, they deliberately lied about the internal structure of the Twin Towers in their final Report on Page 541 note 1 where they baldly state:
... the outside if each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns.... These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buioldings was a hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.
The above quote is a gross misrepresentation. In reality most of the weight of the Towers was borne by 47 massive steel columns arranged in the center of the buildings, in between which were the stairwells and elevators.
The other point that the Commission failed to make was the fact that the fire caused by the the impact was a relatively low-temperature oxygen-starved fire, as evidenced by the thick black smoke. Most of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireballs, and structural steel (as used in the Towers) is an extremely good conductor of heat, meaning that it would have been most unlikely that any part of the steel structure could have attained a temperature even hot enough to even compromise the strength of the steel in small localized places, the huge steel frame of the building acting as a very efficient heatsink.
Furthermore, there were numerous reports from firefighters of 'bombs'
in the Twin Towers. Also, there was a huge explosion in the basement of the North Tower some 10 seconds prior to the impact of "Flight 11", which injured many people and wrecked the lobby.
This is the tip of the iceberg...
As for the Pentagon, what possible purpose would have been served by making Flight 77 disappear, the plane and all of the people aboard, but instead of using this plane, which would have done the job quite nicely, use a missile or a small plane to hit the Pentagon?
What happened to all of the people on that flight if their plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Being used for medical experiments? Sent to Gitmo? Stranded on a tropical island somewhere, forced to relive numerous flashbacks into their sordid pasts?
Yet again, silence from the officials. The Pentagon case is strange; as I mentioned further back in the thread, if there are 84 cameras within the grounds of the Pentagon, as well as on other properties in the immediate area, (some of which did
] catch images of the craft that impacted), why is this footage being denied to the public? If they have nothing inconsistent or incriminating to hide, then they could clear up the (Pentagon aspect) of the conspiracy theories once and for all by being forthright and upfront. But all we get is a roaring slience. Incidentally, how did all those Pentagon officials carefully clear up the debris on the lawn without being challenged by the FBI? Tampering with a crime scene is a serious federal offense, especially in what is probably the most heinous crime scene in the nation's history. I guess certain privileged folk are immune to prosecution.
Are some things about 9/11 strange? Sure. Is there something being covered up? I wouldn't doubt it -- but hiding incompetence or just the Bush administration's reflexive penchant for paranoid secrecy is enough to explain that.
If the 4 simultaneous military exercises personally overseen by Vice President Cheney on the morning of 9/11 (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, and Northern Vigilance) which resulted in the effective standing down the nation's air defenses that morning is "incompetence", then I dread to imagine what would be constituted as "criminal" or "negligent"?
You know, sometimes distrust and paranoia trump rationality too.
I have no love of nor trust in the Bush administration. Considering how well 9/11 worked out for Bush for a time, I even worry that it's not beyond these people to cause, or fail to prevent, another such tragedy in order to shore up Bush's power. I think the MSM (mainstream media) have been doing a terrible job, and a suspiciously biased job at times.
Yet, even given those feelings, lacking little in the way of imagining people in power in this country doing bad things, I still don't see much wrong with the "official story" about 9/11, I have yet to see any well-founded "alternate explanations", and I have yet to hear a single sensible explanation of a credible motivation for anyone to go through all of the weird, and to me quite senseless, complexity that would have to be behind many such "alternate explanations".
As mentioned in my previous entry, the standards of proof, logic, science, rationality and whichever other parameter you may care to mention, that have been by the Government's case are laughably sad. Why are alternative explanations required to be of a degree of bullet-proof-ness and integrity far in excess of what has been presented by the official version? But that is not really the point here: many of the 9-11 skeptics are not even postulating alternative theories; they are not pointing fingers, they are merely asking questions and addressing the garbage that many have accepted purely on blind faith. The MSM have imposed a blanket taboo on awkward questions, and most people havent the time or inclination to dig in and investigate for themselves.
Are large commercial aircraft, and such aircraft alone, enough to cause the damage which occurred on 9/11? Check.
See above: the perps did not know that the planes impacts alone would cause the Towers to collapse since those buildings were designed to withstand exactly such impacts.
Are there plenty of real-life Muslim extremists willing to die to kill a large number of Americans in a spectacular act of terrorism? Check.
There probably are, granted. How 19 of these guys, several of which have been reported alive and well
managed to all simultaneously board those planes unchallenged remains a mystery however.
Would it have been easy for such extremists to pull off such an act, with limited resources and no collaboration beyond their own small numbers? Check.
Such an assumption renders the entire military/security/intelligence apparatus of the U.S, the most powerful and technologically advanced in human history, with a budget and combined inventory of perhaps hundeds of TRILLIONS
a complete waste of money, a folly of astronmical proportions. Did 19 flight school flunkies ran rings around us that morning without help?
Hell, the sad thing is that it's still easy. One thing conspiracy theorists... err, I mean "those who offer alternation explanations"... seldom ever seem to grasp is the fact that it can be EASY to cause massive destruction, that it can be easy to kill even important and powerful people, and that effort behind a destructive act in no way, shape, or form has to equal the impact of that act. Faced with a big and terrible event some people simply will never be satisfied with anything less than a properly intricate and nefarious explanation.
It is normal in the case of a national disaster to set up a Commission of inquiry, grand juries, etc. In the case of the JFK assassinations, this took days,.. as it did for the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle accidents. What about 9/11? It took the Bush Administration 411 days of balking, avoidance, refusals, deferments, technicalities, throwing up every imaginable obstacle, until finally the potential bad PR (the anger from the bereaved families) finally persuaded them to set up a "Commission". What a sick joke that happened to be. directed by White House insider and arch neoCon Philip Zelikow, they refused point blank to consider any aspect of the story that didn't gel with their pre-ordained conclusion.
It's impossible to get into all stuff that doesn't fit, re. the official explanation, ie the parts that prompt the difficult questions. If so, this entry would be hundreds of times larger than this.