9/11 conspiracy theories

[Tony]

Ah, more digging reveals that Professor Jones' speciality is Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy... not good old fashioned structural engineering.

 

I've read his paper before, and frankly, it's nonsense. (I've not studied Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, or Solar energy, but unlike him, I've studied structural engineering )

[blip]

Students who attend Brigham Young University must follow a strict honor code that includes a dress code, forbidding sex outside of marriage, clean shaven for men, multiple earrings not allowed, maintaining a clean and neat appearance, prohibiting use of alcoholic beverages and no visiting of dorm rooms of the opposite sex.

 

I'm thinking of getting an additional ear piercing just so that I can fail their 'strict honor code' on all counts.

 

Why is it that whenever one digs into the pro-conspiracy theorists' backgrounds you find a group of nutters with nerdy grins on their faces? That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

[blip]

I've eventually come to the conclusion that 9/11 is a case of LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) rather than MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). In other words, the neo-cons didn't arrange the attacks themselves, but they were aware of the Al-Qaeda plot and did nothing to stop it. They needed 9/11 in order to invade Iraq and introduce the Patriot Act.

 

An interesting half-way house.

[Phanerothyme]

An interesting half-way house.

 

And not an unprecedented strategy either.

[angle20]

I’m inclined to a ‘strong LIHOP’ stance on this. My guess is that there was an Al-Qaeda [in so far as Al-Qaeda can be regarded as a large and coherent organisation] plot to fly planes into the twin towers. The American administration then facilitated this by means (amongst other things) of the FBI HQ suppressing action by its field offices. However, the plot went further, I conjecture, by the administration including ‘add-ons’: rigging the towers with explosives (to bring about their visually dramatic collapse) and faking two further plane attacks (or attempted attack) on Washington (the ‘strong’ part of the theory).

 

I’ve just read a book called 9.11 Revealed by Ian Henshall & Rowland Morgan. I’d recommend this as a good readable summary of the sceptic theories. One thing I’d doubted is that the US government would actually self-inflict an attack on such large and prestigious buildings as the towers. However, as Henshall & Morgan explain, the twin towers were due for a mid-life refurbishment, and under present-day regulations vast amounts of asbestos would have to be stripped out. Quite a large proportion of the floor space was unoccupied; although the buildings looked impressive from the outside their narrow windows didn’t make them particularly pleasant to work in. It’s quite feasible that the collapse was an industrial demolition job arranged to be co-terminous with a terrorist attack.

 

The purported attack on the Pentagon is particularly risible. We are asked to believe that a rookie pilot managed to manoeuvre a Boeing 757 from 7000 to 15 feet in a tight, banking 330 degree circuit. Furthermore, he managed to ram the plane into one very special part of the building: a part which had recently had reinforcement work done [which would be useful in concealing evidence] and was, because of the work, largely unoccupied. Despite the apparent conflagration arising from the impact not a blade of grass on the adjacent lawn was singed. The Costa Rican owner of a nearby gas station reported that “within minutes” of the attack FBI officers arrived to confiscate his CCTV footage. If the authorities were genuinely unaware would they really have been that quick thinking? I don’t think so.

 

The motive for conspiracy? Was it, as French writer Thierry Meysann has suggested, a coup d’etat by the American military-industrial complex? Or was it – another potential cui bono explanation – a Jewish plot to stitch up Muslims and promote Zionist geo-political interests? You decide.

[Tony]

... and that's all from Jackanory until tomorow children

[fnkysknky]

A couple of points:

 

1. Where were these explosives supposedly sited?

2. Why would the asbestos need to be removed? It's safe as long as it's not disturbed.

[angle20]

A couple of points:

 

1. Where were these explosives supposedly sited?

2. Why would the asbestos need to be removed? It's safe as long as it's not disturbed.

 

The presumption is that explosives would have been placed in the optimum locations for a controlled demolition. The rapid and orderly collapse of the towers was always a suspicious aspect of 9/11. Michael Taylor, a Pennsylvania demolition contractor told New Scientist magazine that: “The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition…”. The buildings’ architects said they had allowed for a Boeing 707 collision in their design of the buildings.

 

Judging from the impressive fireball pics much of the aircraft kerosene burnt off harmlessly outside the buildings. Another expert, a Professor Frischmann, said that sprayed water protection should have maintained the buildings’ internal strength for several hours. Others experts who have examined video footage of the collapses noted tell-tale explosive squibs of smoke at each floor preceding the more general smoke producing by the progressive collapse. The twin towers (and the adjacent WTC7 building which was also “pulled” for suspicious reasons) are the only steel towers which have collapsed as a result of an office fire. Major fires in tall steel buildings in Los Angeles in 1988 and Madrid in 2005 did not result in the collapse of the buildings involved.

 

On the asbestos issue, Henshall & Morgan say:

the latest building regulations would have dictated stripping out the asbestos that still lined vast expanses of ceiling, not to mention the remainder that shielded all the 90,000 tonnes of steelwork in the North Tower and the lower third of the South Tower. Such a job would have been unrealistically expensive and physically impractical, with no gain in revenues. For that reason, the place was pretty run down

[Pingpang]

dunno if it's been mentioned but u've got the mysterious controlled explosion demolition/collapse of a third building neaxt door to wtc that hadn't even been hit by plane

[Tony]

If you and angle 20 read all the way through this thread you'll see that there are no mysteries It's there is you want to find out the quiet realities rather than the half baked but noisy conspiracies.