Hot dicussion of the month! Last Move to top.
The biggest problem with any conspiracy theory is that for any real questions there are a dozen hair-brained ideas as to what happened. No matter what happened on 9/11, the event has become a new Kennedy assassination in the lore of possible conspiracies, with theories ranging from stupidity and a failure of leadership in the face of direct warnings to an Operation Northwoods-type government operation. Those making accusations carry varying levels of credibility, further muddying the waters of the debate.
Kevin Barrett believes the U.S. government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.
These men aren’t uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.
According to polls, some Americans believe in 9/11 conspiracy theory.
With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks quickly approaching, skepticism about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy is strong, as one in three Americans believe officials in the federal government either assisted or took no action to stop the attacks, according to a recent survey. About 36 percent of the 1,010 respondents in a national Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll said that they thought U.S. government officials were involved in the Sept. 11 atrocities because they wanted the U.S. to go to war in the Middle East.
Some accusations come from unusual sources.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York’s Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world’s jihadists.
In ‘Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,’ author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world’s ‘chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Of course, there are also many who dismiss conspiracies. There are a number of people loudly decrying conspiracy theories, so not all the noise is from those thinking the government was behind 9/11.
So what do you think? Ignorance, conspiracy, or terrorist act?
And I should add that if there has been no or minimal effort to correct the danger of fuel storage in building, then that is a case of bureaucratic incompetence, not a refutation of jet fuel/diesel fuel’s role in the collapse of the towers and building 7.
I give up… You dittoheads, are not going to ask questions. Popular Mechanix is part and parcel of the mainstream media. Who’s to say that they didn’t pay those scientists to tow the party line. You can believe what you want, but I know what I saw, and it just doesn’t add up.
Some of you are like sheep, just following the lead of the mainstream media, and not willing to go out and do the hard research yourself.
I don’t believe the conspiracy theorists either. They are convinced that there was some part of the Bush administration that wanted/helped this thing happen.
I just have questions, have conducted my own research… In the library, using books from industry standards organizations, and respected research like NASA, MIT, and others.
I just don’t believe what I was told by the mainstream media, or the conspirists, but maybe something in between is really the truth.
J. Michael Straczynski, in his series Babylon 5 said it best, when his character, John Sheridan said, “Understanding is a three edged sword. There’s his side, your side, and the TRUTH.”
’nuff said.
Frank,
One thing… Since the towers got hit at the top, why did they collapse downward, just like WTC 7 did. I mean, WTC1 and 2 collapsed EXACTLY like WTC7, which didn’t get hit. If WTC7 was burning, why didn’t it stay standing like the other towering infernos? DId they pull it? I can totally see the top’s of WTC1 and 2 tipping and falling to the ground, but not collapsing down like WTC7 did.
It’s not clear what you are suggesting, “Named”. Perhaps since the towers were hit at the top, they should have fallen UP?
On the south tower (Building 2), the heaviest damage was to the southeast corner. This area is where the collapse started, and the portion of this building tilted as it fell onto the stories below.
In the north tower (Building 1), there was heavy damage to the support columns in the center of the building on the floors where the imact occurred. In the north tower, the inside columns weakened first, causing the building to collapse from within – note that the roof started to “soften” and the TV antenna plunged down into the building, before the outer walls failed, in the earliest stages of the collapse. The north tower fell down in a somewhat straighter manner than the south tower did.
As the Popular Mechanics article points out, WTC 7 was built on a transfer trusses (a bridge basically) over an existing Con Ed power plant. The transfer truss failed due to the heat of the fire. The transfer trusses were on the 5th and 7th floors of the building, much lower than the areas where the planes hit either tower.
The quote about “pulling” WTC 7 refers to evacuating firefighters from there, not “pulling it down”. It’s really pathetic that people continue to use such a blatant mis-quote.
Complete, total, utter BULLS**T.
-Building 3 (Vista Hotel, 22 stories) – falling debris from the south tower split the building in half.
-Building 4 (9 stories) – damaged beyond repair and later demolished.
-Building 5: (9 stories) – badly damaged by debris from towers, experienced partial collapse on floors 6-8
-Building 6 (7 stories) – damaged beyond repair and later demolished.
Note that these were low-rise buildings. Being of much smaller mass than the towers, they are much less vulnerable to progressive failure than the larger buildings of the much lower mass involved.
In fact, the “controlled implosion” method of demolition cannot be used at all on buildings less than six stories high, because sufficient momentum to collapse the entire building cannot be created.
And once again, they had no large quantities of diesel fuel burning in them like 1, 2, and 7.
Rocky –
None so gullible as a “skeptic”.
OK, “Named” –
Let’s put it this way – do you think that the towers in Madrid, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Sao Paolo would have remained standing if they had been hit by planes like the towers or contained millions of gallons of diesel fuel like Building 7?
Denis –
My saying that your beliefs (or those of Rocky or “Named”) are idiotic, is not the same as depriving you of your right to believe them.
And if you are going to deprive me of my right to say that I think that such beliefs are idiotic, then you are denying ME my right to free speech.
137,
kerosene is WORSe, as it wont Disperse faster, it will sit there and accumulate HEAT and time.
AS WELL as Kerosene has a tendacy to eat plastics, and USE them to burn better.
Frank,
I don’t recall ever saying anything of the sort about your beliefs. This is a discussion. Sure, some people can get hot and bothered about it and take it too personally, but really, the back and forth is the best part! It should be done in a bar over some beers, but alas, it’s not. Now, back to the controversy!
PBS did a documentary on the WTC 7, here’s the quote…
In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
So, pulling IT certainly cannot mean the FD. Unless they’re suddenly inhuman. Anyhoo, as you stated before, it was the heat of the office furniture that precipitate the whole collapse of the building. Should we assume that aside from the awesomeness of the WTC 1 and 2 and 7 they actually had more combustible furniture than any of the other towering infernos? 24 hours is a long time for a building to burn. They may have pulled it afterwards (not the FD, the building), but it stood. Now, what caused the fire in WTC 7 again? Was it a smoker?
As for collapsing UP, that’s just asinine… I said tipping and falling to the side, not up. But, as you say, in one ear and out the other, repeat 10000 times.
So, what we have here is a single source of information from the “normals”, Popular Mechanics, and multiple sources contradicting the “normals” from the “nuts.”
Always remember. Conspiracy is a keystone in business studies, so they do exist. And conspiracy is a keystone in the legal system too.
I would like to comment but I’m afraid the government is monitoring my every move.
So you are saying that there are only two things he could have meant:
1) “Demolish Building 7.”
2) “Demolish the Fire Department.”
That’s a rather ridiculous strawman – once again you ignore the much more obvious alternative:
3) “Pull the fire department out of building 7”, so as to minimize further loss of life of the firemen – the building had been completely evacuated of civilians hours earlier. Or would you have prefered that the firemen had been in building 7 when it collapsed?
I described how the buildings fell. The south tower tilted slighty, but ultimately was pulled straight down by gravity. The north tower collapsed from within first, and was pulled straight down by gravity. The collapse of building 7 started just slightly away from the center of the building, so there was a slight tilt to one side initially, then the buillding fell straight down by gravity. Yes, gravity tends to do that, in case you didn’t notice.
True, there are multiple flaky conspiracy theories, which contradict each other, and one truth about what happened that day. Your point?
Comment deleted for violation of posting guidelines.
edwabrew62,
(Response removed as original comment was deleted due to posting violation – Ed)
Frank,
I don’t think you understand what a strawman arguement is. Firstly, when talking about a building, and you say “the smartest thing to do is pull it” it kind of presupposes that you are talking about the subject. What started the fire again? Possibly he is referring to the FD, but how do we know that? Did you Popular Mechanics article discuss it? And please, what started the fire again?
Damn these regulations! What is this? Nazi Germany? (That was for you edwabrew62!)
I can’t believe you’re asking this question again. Honestly, I can’t.
Here’s Lou Dobbs weighing in on the issue.
No way I’m reading thru 162 comments on this! Holy cr*p!
Everyone knows Bush (allegedly dumb as a bag of rocks) masterminded the 9/11 attacks in an effort to secure a future 2nd term (as a backup to voter fraud). Duh!
(\sarcasm OFF)
Frank. I don’t recall your answer too it. Mind you I was at work for the majority of the day yesterday and missed about a hundred comments, so please forgive my employee productivity.
I believe you said diesel generators burning. But did they spontaneously combust? Don’t be mad Frank! be glad someone in this world is talking with you! I may have called you names earlier, but I don’t have a hate on for you. In fact, for all I know, you could be a member of the secret societies leading us with you campaign of misinformation! But that’s ok too. You’re entilted to your club memberships…
So which is the more reasonable explanation –
1) He meant “pull the firemen out of the building”, because it was a lost cause and he didn’t want to endanger their lives any further, given that all persons other than first responders had been evacuated from the building hours ago.
2) He meant “demolish the building”, because doing this would somehow stem the “terrible loss of life”, requiring that demolition experts be sent into the conflagration with tons of explosives, wire, etc., somehow escaping detection, and then demolish the plaster around the steel support columns, saw grooves into the support columns for the charges, and then insert the charges, wire the charges… and then get out (again without detection) all in the space of a few minutes.
I go with #1.
And you?
Do you actually read the stuff you type before you hit the RETURN key?
What caused the fire frank… There are houses with oil tanks in them for heating, natural gas furnaces, but they don’t explode on their own. What was the catalyst.
Yes, the only way that the diesel in the tanks, in the midst of the burning debris and the ensuing conflagration could have ignited, is through “spontaneous combustion”.
You’re a genius, you are.
So, I see this huge building, with generators probably 5 – 6 floors below ground, and the debris somehow goes through the building without any appreciable damage, and catches on fire? methinks you’re the genius, and we’re all waiting for you to show us the light.
What did you popular mechanics article say about it again?
This is a joke, isn’t it?
Not really. The building looked pretty good before it collapsed. Some smoke, maybe some mirrors. But, really, what caused it. I know I keep asking, because you keep deflecting… Some solid proof would be great. This is the tricky thing about truth. It’s subjective. The only absolute truths are in maths, everything else is relative. And once you poke a hole in one place, you have to reexamine everything else.
Frank
At this point I think you are wasting your time.
Roc Rizzo
Popular mechanics is part of the conspiracy and not to be believed? Yet you take what NASA says as solid evidence. Do you see the error in your logic? Since there have been many articles contributed by NASA engineers of the years. Don’t get me wrong I think NASA does very reliable work but they are a also government agency.
The “TRUTH” is that you only recognize information that supports your stance and the rest is to be ignored. This is a very sad mental state to find ones self. Maybe you ought to get help to find out why you have to have someone to blame other than yourself for the way your life is.
BTW I don’t like the Bush administration and I never have. I despise the way they govern our country. No one wants them removed from office more than me. So, I don’t tow anyone’s line!!! I look at the data and come to a rational conclusion. I don’t jump to conclusions based on shoddy evidence, speculation, and wild fantasy. I also don’t stick to a position just because I “THINK” that’s the way it should be.
methinks Frankie IBC (what does IBC stand for anyway? some kind of root beer?) will catch fire due to spontaneous human combustion soon, if he keeps posting here. It can’t be good for him to be arguing this much.
Rocco (NOT Rocky) DSFA
Named:
Please read the following link for more info: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Just in case you don’t feel like reading it: The building WAS damaged when the WTC1&2 collapsed. However, due to the smoke and fire from those colapses, the only pictures the film crews could see was the face of the building AWAY from the initial colapses. Since there was not enough force (ie plane crashing into it) the face of the building AWAY from the colapse of WTC1&2 would show minor damage, but only someone who really WANTS to believe that this is a government coverup would believe that the collapse of the other towers did NO damage to WTC7 and it was all done by a demolitions crew.
How hard is it to understand that a government capable of the complete failure in Katrina would also be as incompentent a few years earlier with 9/11? Do I believe that there were some half-truths and mistatements told: Yes, because the people involved were trying to make themselves look NOT incompentent.
But for all of you that believe that 9/11 was CAUSED by GW and the government: Boy do I have a real estate sale for you…I’ve got here the deed to the golden gate bridge and I can get you a good price on it. *grin*
“Named” –
The “Pristine” WTC Building 7
Rocky –
Yes, as a matter of fact, my screnname is a tribute to my very favorite soft drink. I considered and rejected Frank A&W, Frank Inka Cola, and Frank Vernor’s Ginger Ale.
“How hard is it to understand that a government capable of the complete failure in Katrina would also be as incompentent a few years earlier with 9/11? Do I believe that there were some half-truths and mistatements told: Yes, because the people involved were trying to make themselves look NOT incompentent. ”
I agree with you!!!!! 100%