The Truth Behind 9/11

[Dr_Dave]

Quite possibly, and knowing the media, quite probable - but until a proper investigation, not certain. This is only one issue, there are others too: the coincidence of a 'perfect collapse', so called evidence of iron pellets that only be produced at high temperatures >fire (i.e. explosives) etc. and other factors that still need 'explaining'.

 

Remember that Selby train crash? I was driving to a course in Reading, listening to Radio 5 when it happened. The initial report was that a van with a bomb in it had been left on the rail track, and they spent a good ten minutes discussing the possibility of the return of IRA terrorism. In the fog of war following a large media event, news companies will go to air with the first thing that comes in, because normally people don't remember initial reports and you never know, it might be true.

 

I always de-lurk on these type of threads, because I think it's worth considering the two possibilities in their entirety:

 

1) On the one hand, two 100+ storey buildings collapsed just across the road from a 40+ story building, causing documented structural damage and triggering fires across a significant part of the building which burned for 7 or 8 hours fuelled by large supplies of diesel fuel. Building then collapsed.

 

2) Alternatively, a building was rigged with super secret, silent explosives over the course of a number of months without the occupants of the building noticing. Planes were then flown into two other buildings in the hope they would collapse in such a way that they could plausibly be blamed for damage to the rigged building, and in such a way as to not damage the triggering mechanisms for the explosives. The fire department, police department, emergency service coordinators, local government, federal government, Jewish employees in the affected buildings, media and mobile phone companies are all told of the plan in advance. The BBC, in an effort to keep the plan secret, broadcast news of the building's destruction before it happened. To further ensure the conspiracy remained clandestine, the owner of the building went on TV and told the world what they were doing. Finally, the explosives - which had survived 7 hours of intense heat - were triggered so as to make the building collapse perfectly symmetrically in daylight and in full view of the world's media, rather than triggering the explosives haphazardly to make it look like a "natural" collapse.

 

The second option might make a good comic book actually. But not a very realistic one eh? If they wanted to cover up documents, they should have probably just bought a shredder.

 

Dave

[Jimcalagon]

Alternatively, a building was rigged with super secret, silent explosives over the course of a number of months without the occupants of the building noticing. Planes were then flown into two other buildings in the hope they would collapse in such a way that they could plausibly be blamed for damage to the rigged building, and in such a way as to not damage the triggering mechanisms for the explosives. The fire department, police department, emergency service coordinators, local government, federal government, Jewish employees in the affected buildings, media and mobile phone companies are all told of the plan in advance. The BBC, in an effort to keep the plan secret, broadcast news of the building's destruction before it happened. To further ensure the conspiracy remained clandestine, the owner of the building went on TV and told the world what they were doing. Finally, the explosives - which had survived 7 hours of intense heat - were triggered so as to make the building collapse perfectly symmetrically in daylight and in full view of the world's media, rather than triggering the explosives haphazardly to make it look like a "natural" collapse.

 

You know, that just might work... But you left out back-engineered alien technology from Area 51. I'm sure that's got something to do with it.

 

Oh and the secret papers that were destroyed would have proved that the moon landings were faked.

[Albert Tatlock]

Exactly, yes, which is why I clearly said 'may have been'. I didn't invent some daft explanation like a while building rigged in the late 70's with explosives ready for the time, two decades later, that they'd be needed.

There you go again, picking the unlikliest conspiracy theory of all, attempting to attach every doubter to it, simply to justify that it is ALL bollocks.

I've never claimed people don't lie either, I just don't see the worst in everything like you seem to.

I just stick to the facts Danno. If coppers based their judgements on your approach, 50% of the people inside prisons would be innocent, and 90% of crimes would go unsolved.

[ai_Droid]

There you go again, picking the unlikliest conspiracy theory of all, attempting to attach every doubter to it, simply to justify that it is ALL bollocks.

 

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just a bit thick?

 

I just stick to the facts Danno. If coppers based their judgements on your approach, 50% of the people inside prisons would be innocent, and 90% of crimes would go unsolved.

 

Facts my arse. You're miserable until proven happy.

[Albert Tatlock]

There you go again, picking the unlikliest conspiracy theory of all, attempting to attach every doubter to it, simply to justify that it is ALL bollocks.

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just a bit thick?

Er...I'm reading your posts i.e.

ai_Droid: I didn't invent some daft explanation like a while building rigged in the late 70's with explosives ready for the time, two decades later, that they'd be needed.

I just stick to the facts Danno. If coppers based their judgements on your approach, 50% of the people inside prisons would be innocent, and 90% of crimes would go unsolved.

ai_Droid: Facts my arse. You're miserable until proven happy.

God forbid I become the 'reasonable man' you are.

[Dr_Dave]

Er...I'm reading your posts i.e.

ai_Droid: I didn't invent some daft explanation like a while building rigged in the late 70's with explosives ready for the time, two decades later, that they'd be needed.

 

Trouble is, given the initial assumption:

 

"Metal spheres have been found in the dust that could only have come from thermite"

 

this kind of messed up endpoint is the inevitable destination. If someone wants to show that the building was rigged to explode, then it is contingent on them to come up with an hypothesis as to how it was rigged, and in doing so they inevitably get into the tangle of ludicrous events that must have occurred to get to that endpoint. They are forced accept a scenario involving months of preparation that went unnoticed by the occupants of one of the busiest parts of the world, a conspiracy with a cast of literal thousands or a conspiracy with decades of prior preparation stretching back to the construction of WTC7.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that these scenarios are what even the more reasonable truthers are forced to accept, do you? And this is focussing on the smallest part of the wider September 11th mythology.

 

Dave

[thebees]

The 11th is historically a bad event day, the Sweedish person got shot in Canada on 11/11 a few years ago, then there was some other stuff happened on the 11th of a month sometime also and then the 9/11 thing happened, oh there was 11/7 too wasn't there? Maybe we should have an international terrorist day, every month on the 11th we should all stay in 'just in case'.

 

What annoys me the most about all of these things is the amount of money being thrown at protecting us from ourselves, the security twats everywhere you go. Grrr grrr.

[Albert Tatlock]

...this kind of messed up endpoint is the inevitable destination. If someone wants to show that the building was rigged to explode, then it is contingent on them to come up with an hypothesis as to how it was rigged, and in doing so they inevitably get into the tangle of ludicrous events that must have occurred to get to that endpoint. They are forced accept a scenario involving months of preparation that went unnoticed by the occupants of one of the busiest parts of the world, a conspiracy with a cast of literal thousands or a conspiracy with decades of prior preparation stretching back to the construction of WTC7.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that these scenarios are what even the more reasonable truthers are forced to accept, do you? And this is focussing on the smallest part of the wider September 11th mythology.

I suppose that all depends on your view as to how long it takes to attach devices to key points in a building. Again, I am not saying it was wired to explode, just that I don't know until I see a full report on WTC7, which there isn't available yet. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that in four or five hours, four or five men could have done this in what was an empty building, without the constraints of a health and safety executive. Conventional demolition uses miles of wiring, but radio technology also exists in order to detonate devices.

[ai_Droid]

It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that in four or five hours, four or five men could have done this in what was an empty building, without the constraints of a health and safety executive. Conventional demolition uses miles of wiring, but radio technology also exists in order to detonate devices.

 

In four or five hours in an inferno of a burning building, un-noticed by both the world press and an army of police and firefighters?

[Albert Tatlock]

It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that in four or five hours, four or five men could have done this in what was an empty building, without the constraints of a health and safety executive. Conventional demolition uses miles of wiring, but radio technology also exists in order to detonate devices.

In four or five hours in an inferno of a burning building, un-noticed by both the world press and an army of police and firefighters?

But it wasn't 'an inferno of a building'. Fires were on several floors, not all, and did not cover all floor areas on those burning floors.

 

The worlds press and the bulk of the police and firefighters also had their attention on other matters at the time i.e. the towers. Again, though I hope unlikely, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a few people could have entered the building, maybe initially dressed as firefighters for instance. Numerous people have been trained by the forces to operate 'unseen'. Something is not right, and until I see a full investigation carried out, sorry but my lingering doubts will remain.

[Dr_Dave]

I suppose that all depends on your view as to how long it takes to attach devices to key points in a building. Again, I am not saying it was wired to explode, just that I don't know until I see a full report on WTC7, which there isn't available yet. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that in four or five hours, four or five men could have done this in what was an empty building, without the constraints of a health and safety executive. Conventional demolition uses miles of wiring, but radio technology also exists in order to detonate devices.

 

But you can see how this adds to the complexity of the plot can't you? It takes it many steps away from the "minimum implausibility" scenario I tried to outline. Now you have a snap descision to demolish the building. The movement of demolitions experts and a massive amount of equipment in a morning that is probably one of the most filmed mornings in the history of celluloid. The placing of explosives in an inferno. The complicity of the fire department and emergency services, not to mention the thousands of civilians moving around the area. The perfect placement of explosives to carry out an apparently text book demolition in what was probably two or three hours at most. The subsequent collusion of the demolitions industry to cover up that such a feat is even possible.

 

I wonder how you'd convince explosives experts to go into a 43 storey burning building carrying thermite? Knowing, as they probably did, that a thermite ignition requires nothing more than high temperatures. Perhaps they were recruited from a group of suicidal explosives experts?

 

Dave

[The Old Git]

I suspect that the official report into WTC7 won't do anything to convince the conspiracy theorists of what really happened. I'd guess they would just say "well it would say that, wouldn't it" and carry on the same as before.

[Skeddan]

I enjoyed the programme. In some ways the US govt doing this could perhaps make sense - securing oil supplies is a matter of vital national interest, and something like this could give a pretext for Iraq and Afghanistan - with probably fewer casualties in the long run thanks to international support and 'legitimacy' of the invasions. However if so, I'd have thought they would have seeded better evidence to implicate Iraq in 9/11 than there was!

 

The trouble with the 'truthers' is they get into elaborate and highly complex scenarios which would involve massive cover-up. This posits outstandingly brilliant criminal masterminds who are also fantastically incompetent in some respects. If you are going to do something like this it is of course critical to not be found out. Controlled demolition of a building leaves evidence that doesn't tie in, so arouses suspicion. Involving demolition experts widens people in the know and adds to the risk of a whistleblower. What is gained by the demolition of WTC7? - even greater public outrage against the terrorists? Mission accomplished just by crashing the planes into the towers, so why risk exposure? (especially in these days of forensics).

 

You don't want to have any incriminating evidence or to have to dig yourself into cover-ups - so you have very very few people know about it - the terrorists carrying it out would believe it is jihad - only the Al Qaeda insider initiating the op for the terrorists and the handful of US officials directing policy would need to know - that way it would be carried out exactly like a terrorist operation. So why have an elaborate complex staged conspiracy involving several thousand people? The kind of plan the truthers are suggesting would never get off the drawing board let alone get approval. In any case anyone involved in this kind of political warfare would know how to run it covertly as a 'legit' Al Qaeda attack - and would keep it simple and effective without resorting to such fantastic and impossibly complex, huge and hard to manage schemes.

 

The other interesting thing is what this 'truthers' movement says about attitudes to the US Administration within the US. Also it was a shame that the prog only briefly touched on how this has been used for disinformation for anti-Israel and anti-US propaganda - with Iran etc. using this to fuel distrust. I think the US Administration and/or Israel might be quite capable of this - and in geopolitical terms it might be quite sound and sensible - but I don't believe they are so stupid as to carry it out in the way suggested (e.g. Mossad warning 4,000 Jews to stay away!). So much about 9/11 is more to do with spin than actual reality - it is 'history' written and presented according to agendas and slants, and what actually happened takes second place.

[*daniel*]

The subsequent collusion of the demolitions industry to cover up that such a feat is even possible.

 

I wonder how you'd convince explosives experts to go into a 43 storey burning building carrying thermite? Knowing, as they probably did, that a thermite ignition requires nothing more than high temperatures. Perhaps they were recruited from a group of suicidal explosives experts?

 

Dave

 

Have other soldiers not risked their lives in operations? That is the very nature of their job...

[ai_Droid]

But it wasn't 'an inferno of a building'. Fires were on several floors, not all, and did not cover all floor areas on those burning floors.

 

Except it was. There's plenty of footage and eyewitnesses as presented in the documentary. Windows blown outwards, burning on all sides, even satellite imagery showing the temperature of the building. It was on fire, and very fucking hot indeed.

 

Do you know how much it would take to rig such a building? How long it normally takes to create a controlled explosion even in perfect, non blazing inferno covert mission type conditions?

 

The worlds press and the bulk of the police and firefighters also had their attention on other matters at the time i.e. the towers. Again, though I hope unlikely, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a few people could have entered the building, maybe initially dressed as firefighters for instance. Numerous people have been trained by the forces to operate 'unseen'. Something is not right, and until I see a full investigation carried out, sorry but my lingering doubts will remain.

 

Lingering doubts is fine, suggesting utter implausable explanations for lingering doubts is insane.