| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3204 Registered: 5-2001  |
I've refrained from saying this on MOL until now, but it seems to me like enough time has passed and I might as well come out with it... I suspect that Americans -- perhaps the folks of PNAC -- are complicit in 9/11. It's a terrible thing to say, and also a terrible thing to believe. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Such a horrible event inevitably spawns a lot of conspiracy theories that are completely without merit. But there are so many huge questions about that day that have never been adequately answered, and national security can not a sufficient reason to hide the answers to all of them. What about WTC 7? There was not nearly enough damage from debris or fires for it to collapse. Yet it fell straight down into its own footprint with the incredible precision of an expert demo job. Smoke plumes emerged from around the building right before it fell. Buildings with that type of construction NEVER collapse in that manner as a result of accidental damage or fire. It had to be deliberate, and if it was deliberate then it had to be planned. If it was planned, then the planners must have orchestrated the entire day's events. The ramifications are so immense and so terrible that most of us reflexively deny the possibility that it can be true. But I can't help wondering... why did WTC 7 fall? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1865 Registered: 7-2004  |
It is a horrible thing to consider. I mentioned it in another thread today, but those seven minutes of complete deer-in-a-headlight inaction after the president knew America was under attack should also give us major pause and reason to ask questions. He knew America was under attack yet couldn't find it in himself to do something, anything, including ask further questions about the who, what, when and where? I suspect we'll never know the truth. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 825 Registered: 7-2003 |
This is offensive. 7 WTC fell because five million tons of skyscraper collapsed into a heap right across the street. The presence of a large fuel tank in the building, meant to power NYC's emergency center (the 'bunker') certainly helped. Conspiracy theories are the intellectualization of the ignorant. I am very surprised at you, Notehead. This is the kind of airhead nonsense I have come to expect from some quarters on MOL, but not you. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1688 Registered: 5-2001 |
A very good article on this very subject not long ago in New York mag. http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4255 Registered: 12-2001  |
Notehead, Shame on you. This thread is weak even by conspiracy theory standards. Who would benefit from the destruction of WTC 7? Certainly the main towers alone provide enough grist for the conspiracy mills. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4810 Registered: 5-2001 |
Looks like of the four options, most people around here go for the "incompetence" one. I'm certainly there myself. We might as well be. Even if the LIHOP or MIHOP theories are true, we will NEVER find out. A left-leaning Democratic congress and administration beyond our imaging wouldn't let that cat out of the bag. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1986 Registered: 3-2004  |
I suspect that Americans -- perhaps the folks of PNAC -- are complicit in 9/11. i am disgusted at the implication. any person who could believe that the u.s. government could be involved in the mass slaughter of its own citizens in a terrorist act like this, is not a rational and intelligent being and is beneath contempt. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 764 Registered: 5-2001  |
But if we have mass slaughter of citizens from another country it is OK. | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 874 Registered: 8-2001  |
Notehead, The names "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each contain seven letters, and both presidents were killed on a Friday. Word. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 942 Registered: 2-2004 |
Notey, What did you start? Any time llama rears her head you know you are way off base. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4811 Registered: 5-2001 |
But remember... Some conservatives STILL believe that FDR was complicit in Pearl Harbor, and I wonder if the cons here even now will disavow them. The sinking of the Maine was not due to the work of the Spanish. The Gulf of Tonkin attack was bogus. The pretexts for the Mexican war are still highly doubtful. Pat Tillman died from friendly fire, despite the brave stories. Remember how bogus Jessica Lynch's "rescue" turned out to be? Any one of the special forces fighters could've just signed her out at the nurses' station. Remember how this  Was really this?: http://www.iraqtimeline.com/graphics/staged.jpg What I'm trying to say is, don't believe for a minute that people in power aren't capable of doing perfectly reprehensible things, big and small, to advance their agenda. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3205 Registered: 5-2001 |
Chris, let me repeat: buildings don't just collapse vertically in a neat pile like that. It has never, ever happened before or since, except in cases of expert demolition. Also, the collapse of the towers was insufficient to cause such a collapse, and there has been no suggestions by experts that this was the cause. FEMA's report (the only governmental report publically available on the subject) says that, because they can't come up with a clear cause, they assume that it must have been due to the fires, but fires do not EVER bring down steel buildings. Consider the more technical explanation on this pagel. I know the concept is horrific, but I can't convince myself that WTC 7 wasn't deliberately brought down. Tjohn, yes, there are plenty of points made about the main towers that conspiracy theorists use, but I find the WTC 7 situation more compelling. Why did feds remove all the rubble before a proper examination could take place? Who would benefit from the destruction of that building? Consider the list of tenants, which I think include a number of very tempting targets for the perpetrators: Salomon Smith Barney Internal Revenue Service Regional Council U.S. Secret Service American Express Bank International (headquarters) Standard Chartered Bank Provident Financial Management ITT Hartford Insurance Group First State Management Group, Inc Federal Home Loan Bank NAIC Securities Securities & Exchange Commission Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5568 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yeah, notehead. A neat little pile with no neighboring buildings taking on any damage. Do you also think the Jews got out in time? What about the Masons? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 409 Registered: 1-2006 |
Uhhh, Tom. Your "this" is the hyperlink "that." And since you say that this is a lie, because the truth is that, and since that is this, the truth is a lie. You read it first, here, in Ross country, MOL, 1984 has arrived. A little late, but it's here. jd | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1327 Registered: 10-2005 |
Notey- I don't know, I remember watching the news shortly after 9/11 and a newsman was inside WTC 7 shortly before its collapsed. It didn't look to stable to me to begin with. So much debris and blown out windows in the lobby.... And I agree with TJohn, who would benefit from such an act? ALthough I am not in to conspiracy theories don't feel bad for bringing it up. Even the ridiculous notions need to be discussed at times... -SLK RL, Will there ever be a response from you that doesn't drag Dubya into it...stop being cheap and pay for your therapy man.... | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 1729 Registered: 2-2005  |
Lincoln was shot on a Friday, died on Saturday. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1988 Registered: 3-2004 |
it has been explained a million times! the collapse of the towers created a shift in the foundations of surrounding buildings, especially WTC 7. its foundation became almost fluid from the surrounding pressure of the trade towers collapse. this caused a catastrophic failure at the foundation level. this would cause a collapse exactly like the one we all saw. conspiracy theories are for people who are unable to deal with the harsh reality of a situation and are looking for a more complex and sinister answer. they cannot believe that something so simple and easy could be the cause of so much devastation and need the conspiracy to add complexity to the answer in order to make it seem more real. the belief in conspiracy theories is also sign of severe immaturity, paranoia, and insecurity according to alot of psychiatric studies. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4256 Registered: 12-2001 |
Sometimes it is more comforting to think the answer is a conspiracy as opposed to governmental incompetence. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4814 Registered: 5-2001 |
joel, my point was that when the famous statue-toppling happened we were shown tightly cropped video and photos designed to give the impression of a massive and spontaneous public event on the part of the Iraqis. In fact, it was a small gathering in a vast, empty plaza, watching something engineered by the U.S. That's what the link shows -- nobody there. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3206 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lib - a million times? I haven't heard that explanation, and apparently the experts at FEMA were not aware of it either. Has anyone else here heard it? Also, it does not explain why the building fell the way it did. I completely understand that you find my suggestion hard or impossible to accept, but you have no reason to bring insults into this. Do you really consider it impossible, in the most literal sense, that Americans could have been involved? Or do you only fervently wish, as I do, that this was not the case? | ||
| mwsilva Citizen Username: Mwsilva Post Number: 493 Registered: 5-2002 |
I think UFO's brought down WTC7. Check the video, they are there just cloked. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1212 Registered: 9-2004 |
With planes making U-turns in the skys for 2 hours.. Bush/Cheney did nothing. With Katrina visible from 22,000 miles in space, 3 days in advance, Bush/Cheney did nothing? Why did the Anti aircraft missle system @ the Pentagon not shoot down,.... Flight 77... ? Why was there no structual steel in the concrete, where FLight 77 hit the Pentagon, and a partial collapse of the roof exposed the concrete floors? No Re-rod in the concrete.. surely the building Inspector got paid off on the renovation. Why did Donald Rumsfeld write in 1998 that He needed a new Pearl Harbor to get the public to support military action in the Persian Gulf. There were over 90 airial interceptions of aircraft in US skies from JAN 2001 to sept, 9th 2001. The system worked fine, except on 9-11. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3207 Registered: 5-2001 |
There are plenty of 9/11 conspiriacy theory elements that I do not have any interest in. I do not consider it likely that holograms, rather than actual planes, struck the towers. I do not think it is significant at all that the domain name tradetowerstrike.com was registered before 9/11. I have no way of knowing if various people, generals, etc., were actually told not to fly that day (although Newsweek did report such). However, consider the following from the New York Magazine article dave23 linked to (which I hadn't read before tonight): Laying out his scenario, Tarpley touched on many of the “unanswered questions” that make up the core of the 9/11 Truth critique of the so-called Official Story. Like: How, if no steel-frame building had ever collapsed from fire, did three such edifices fall that day, including 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by any airplane? And why, if hydrocarbon-fueled fire maxes out at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,700 degrees, did the towers weaken sufficiently to fall in such a short time—only 56 minutes in the case of the South Tower? And why, if the impact destroyed the planes’ supposedly crash-proof flight-recorder black boxes, was the FBI able to find, in perfect condition, the passport of Satam al Suqami, one of the alleged American Airlines Flight 11 hijackers? And how to explain the nonperformance of the FAA and NORAD? How could they, an hour after the first World Trade Center crash, allow an obviously hostile airplane to smash into the Pentagon, headquarters of the entire military-industrial complex, for chrissakes? And why did the Defense Department choose to stage an extraordinary number of military exercises on 9/11—occupying matériel and spreading confusion about who was who on that day? And why was it so important, as decreed by Mayor Giuliani, to clear away the debris, before all the bodies were recovered? And what about the short-selling spree on American and United airlines stock in the days before the attacks? Betting on the stocks to go down—was this real sicko Wall Street insider trading? There were so many questions. But when it came to the big “why” of 9/11, there was only the classic conspiratorial query: “Who benefits?” For Tarpley and others, this was a slam dunk: September 11 was a holocaust-as-ordered by the neocon cabal Project for the New American Century, which, like its Svengali, Leo Strauss, recognized the U.S. masses to be meth-addled, postliterate, post-logical lard-asses, a race of “sheeple” that would never rise to inherit the mantle of post–Cold War world-dominators without “some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” In other words, a new Pearl Harbor like the old Pearl Harbor, which Roosevelt was supposed to have known about and used as an excuse to get us into World War II. Another interesting bit from that article, which I hadn't heard before: One of many eerie 9/11 coincidences is that Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, worked for a firm that handled security for the WTC, and United and American airlines. Later in the article they mention that W's cousin also worked for that firm. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11316 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually the two towers collapsed straight down as the flooring systems failed because of the fires. Also, Seven WTC had an unusual foundation because it was built over a subway line. This could have been a factor in the collapse as well. If Bush had been involved in the "attack", he certainly would have reacted much differently. He wouldn't have continued to read the book at the school and certainly would have headed to New York and Washington on Air Force One to show his "concern" instead of flying around aimlessly for the rest of the day. Sorry, I don't buy it. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4257 Registered: 12-2001 |
Like: How, if no steel-frame building had ever collapsed from fire, did three such edifices fall that day, including 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by any airplane? And why, if hydrocarbon-fueled fire maxes out at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,700 degrees, did the towers weaken sufficiently to fall in such a short time—only 56 minutes in the case of the South Tower? Question 1: Maybe because no other steel building ever experienced the intensity of a fire caused by thousands of gallons of burning jet fule. Question 2: Maybe because steel deforms at temperatures rather lower than the melting point. In fact, steel loses its strength quickly as it heats. And I agree with BobK point that the main towers collapsed remarkably neatly. So, I find nothing unusual about the relatively tidy collapse of WTC 7. So, now we know that skyscrapers don't topple like trees. They collapse straight down. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7091 Registered: 10-2001  |
 | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 411 Registered: 1-2006 |
I watched twice on the tube a deeply saddening documentary about the failures of the trusses in the WTC, due to softening of the metal. The metal did not melt. The design placed the window walls into the actual load bearing matrix. Walls were blown out, and the support loads shifted. But, until the softening, the building held. The softened trusses gave way. Maybe we would be better advised to investigate what is preached in foreign languages in our local mosques. They cheered in Patterson and Brooklyn on 9/11. That is a problem. jd | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1867 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yeah, Scrotis, if makes absolutely no sense bringing Bush into a conversation about 9-11. They have nothing at all to do with each other. Getting any sleep lately, or just desperate to try and "zing" me? What bothers me the most in thinking about whether 9-11 was an inside job, and I think the questions should be raised though I remain unconvinced in the conspiracy, is imagining the likelihood of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pursuing something this heinous. These are not good guys. They've proven time and again they have a specific agenda. They are complusively secretive, manipulative, and outright liars. Is it really so hard to imagine Cheney losing any sleep over a few thousand anonymous American lives lost? I don't know the answer to that with certainty, and that's what gives me pause. Notehead: Bravo to you. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 827 Registered: 7-2003 |
Notehead, I would really appreciate it if you would at least make an effort to get your facts straight. Case in point: Steel. Melts at 2,700 degrees, you say? Do just a little research before saying something like that. And you will find that steel begins to lose it's strength at temperatures of about 600 degrees. It becomes supple and progressively loses it's ability to support a load. To all the boneheads of the conspiracy minded loony left: If you throw several hundred thousand pounds of highly flammable jet fuel into a steel building, and make no effort to extinguish it, the building will implode. Just the way you saw it on TV. Further, if you happen to throw a jumbo jet at very high speed into the said building, it will do some rather serious damage to the internal support structure, causing it to collapse. Just the way you saw it on TV. Conspiracy theories are the intellectualization of the ignorant. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1182 Registered: 10-2004  |
well sure, if there is not an actual conspiracy. Actually agree with you Chris. I dont find this thread to be enlightening at all. I disagree with his conclusion and reject this theory entirely. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2823 Registered: 12-2001  |
This is a silly conspiracy theory. I saw a documentary about it. I couldn't stop watching even though I was outraged by the smug lefty narrator's inch-deep research. If they staged the whole thing with dummy aircraft etc, the one thing they would have done would have been pin it on Saddam. But they didn't really lay good groundwork for that. Also, they got demolition experts, presumably from the military, to blow up buildings full of Americans? And they never leaked or contacted the IG or anything? Come on. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3209 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tjohn, these were not the first tall steel buildings ever to fall. Only the first to fall supposedly as a result of fire, but in a manner exactly like an expert demolition job. For the buildings to collapse in a perfectly vertical manner like that, nearly all of the supporting columns would have had to fail simultaneously. That could not have been the case in the towers, and expecially not in WTC 7. There are many theories about the collapse of these buildings, including: - progressive collapse - core meltdown - column failure - truss failure - shockwave - "piledriver" These are all discussed in detail on this page. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1869 Registered: 7-2004 |
The biggest hole in the theory, as in the JFK assasination, is: Think of how many people would need to be complicit in pulling it off. And ALL of them would have to keep quite about it forever. What are the odds of that happening? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2824 Registered: 12-2001 |
When the American Association of Civil Engineers or somebody like that starts worrying about it, so will I. That's a very funky website. They should get a designer. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1184 Registered: 10-2004 |
 | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4258 Registered: 12-2001 |
Notey, Either you are playing us or you need a therapist or a change of therapists. Even when Hitler staged an event as a provocation, he didn't over do it. He had the Reichstag burned. He didn't burn every government building in Berlin and he certainly didn't torch something useful like the German war minstry on Bendlerstrasse. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 412 Registered: 1-2006 |
notehead: there were no supporting columns in the WTC. the four corners were where trusses were attached, and they supported the building floors, along with the curtain walls, which were anchors for each floor's cross floor length trusses. the genius of the design allowed open 200 by 200 foot floors, and a building which withstood an extreme blunt force, such as a jumbo jet striking the building at 500 mph, and the explosive energy of the fuel detonation. there were no vertical beams. since environmentalists won the war, and asbestos was not able to be used to insulate the trusses, there was no hope. the blow to the building may have so intense that it would have shaken off asbestos, but, we will never know. so, softening of the heated metal led to trusses sagging and giving way at the points with the most pressure, after many minutes of increasing sag and transfer of weight load to corners. too bad this doesn't fit the beliefs of the black helicopter set. but, maybe, the truth is really out there, Scully. jd | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11320 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually their were central cores in both the Towers that were part of the structual system, but the basic point Joel makes is correct. The curtain walls were part of the structure. Building One was built with asbestos insulation, although I believe that it was being removed when floors became vacant. I long thought that the reason building One survived longer than building Two was the absbestos, but watching the PBS special indicates that wasn't the case. The plane that was flown into building two took out one of the corner posts and that appears to be the deciding factor. From personal experience I know building Two shifted before collapsing. I was in one of the stairwells at the time and it was quite an experience, which is a polite way of saying many of us thought we were going to die on the spot. The good thing was people stepped up the pace going down the stairs.  | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4259 Registered: 12-2001 |
since environmentalists won the war, and asbestos was not able to be used to insulate the trusses, there was no hope. Don't you just hate how environmentalists care about our health. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4816 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since anti-regulatory cheapskates won the war, and concrete wasn't used to reinforce the emergency stairwells, there was no hope. |
