On Real Time with Bill Maher last night, they covered the topic of whether 9/11 could have been a conspiracy. Bill mentioned that 36% of Americans now believe that 9/11 either was or could have included a conspiracy. However, the topic wasn’t really covered seriously. Someone mentioned that the Neocons/Bush/Cheney aren’t smart enough to pull off 9/11. The audience cheered very loudy. And then they changed the subject.
And this depressed the shit out of me. I yelled at the TV, “That’s what they want you to think!” But, let me propose something. Was it incompetence that allowed the Neocons to sell the entire country an aggressive war with Iraq, while we knew al Qaeda and Bin Laden were in Afghanistan? The Neocons may be evil, but they are damn successful when they want to be. So, if anyone believes that Neocons are incompetent idiots, they do so at their own peril.
The neocons didn’t succeed in Iraq, but that is because they had other goals. They have not succeeded in running the government because they don’t want to. They have not controlled the growing federal deficit because they would rather make rich people richer. In other words, they don’t care about what is perceived as their failures.
However, when the goal is something they want to accomplish, they are very successful. And with their number one goal, creating a need to go to war in the Middle East, they have been wildly successful. Lo and behold, the world’s worst terrorist attack dropped into their lap to provide motivation.
Besides, the only things that truly needed to be organized for 9/11 were to preplant explosives in the WTC (Bush cousin was in charge of security at the WTC) and to make sure that the government response on 9/11 was a little inept so that no military jets stopped the planes. Obviously the inept part happened. And all the independent analysis of the three buildings of the WTC have determined that the best theory is preplanned demolition.
Ironically, the government’s official report (the NIST) doesn’t even look at the collapses. Instead, the NIST’s analysis purposely ends at the point where collapse “commences”. How the fuck do you analyze a collapse if you don’t analyze the collapse? The NIST stops at “commencement” because their official theory of progressive pancaking of the buildings is pure horseshit.
No one can force others to accept the theory that the WTC buildings came down due to preplanted explosives, or even to investigate it (911research.wtc7.met). But the Neocons sure appreciate the fact that you don’t look further and stay fixated on the idea that Neocons are too stupid to have pulled this off. The only thing that works better than keeping people ignorant is for people to keep themselves ignorant. And before you get upset about this, riddle me this. What is difference between Thermite and Thermate? If you do not know, then you are not yet adequately educated on the WTC collapses.
will you please stop obsessing on theories about the pre-planned demolition of the WTC?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Look at the response, look at the lack of action before hand and on that day. Look at the foreknowledge and stock trading. Look at the hijackers. Look at all of it.
But drop the collapses. It is about the worst way to get the public interested in a better explanation for what happened and why.
Amen, Booman.
The quickest way to turn people off to a 9/11 discussion is to mention explosives or a missing plane. Neither happened, in my opinion, but the rest of the story is dark and dirty as hell.
As I told a journalist recently, if the choices are Door #1: The official story is correct, and Door #2, explosives brought the tower down, I’ll take Door #3.
This is the first post over here for me. The only reason I did it is when I posted on Daily Kos, someone suggested I would get more respect on Booman Tribune. How ironic that the ONLY comment I got was from Booman himself and that it was such a negative comment, not too mention moronic. If you have any good explanation for the collapses, then I am all ears. So, smaty pants, what is your fucking explanation. Or don’t you have one?
WTC7 is a mystery that needs investigation. For that matter, the collapse of the towers needs a more thorough explanation. However, there are factors in the collapse of the WTC towers that separate them from fires in other highrises.
Among the differences, the WTC 1 and 2 were unique structures, unlike any other high rise that has experienced fire. Their structure made them much more vulnerable to sudden failure. They also were hit at a very high velocity by planes that took out internal support columns. I have questions about reports of molten metal in the debris, and potential sources of demolition explosives found there. But the towers could have collapsed with the failure of even one upper floor. I don’t say that we should not investigate the collapses. I say that discussion of the collapses (or denial that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon) are distractions that are used to paint all questioning of the commission’s narrative as loony.
Sorry to Booman for my comments earlier. I lost my head for a moment. I guess I get a little too passionate about this subject. That said, I must passionately disagree.
It is incorrect to say (about the Twin Towers) that “Their structure made them much more vulnerable to sudden failure”. I don’t know what you have read, but there is no truth to the idea that the WTC had some vulnerability. The WTC was made to handle everything it got hit with on 9/11 and more. It is also wrong to say “the towers could have collapsed with failure of one upper floor.” That is just as totally false.
Even if one floor did collapse from just structural failure vis a vis the plane crash and fires (without the help of explosives), there is no way that the buildings hundred floors would have progressively pancaked or turned everything except the steel into dust. You’ve seen pieces of cement fall from high heights. It does not all turn completely into dust when it hits the ground, much less turn to dust in the middle of its fall as the cement (from the floorbeds) all did on the way down.
I really think it is funny/sad/surprising how supposedly open minded people can deny the obvious just because it was horrific. You’ve seen the video of WTC7 collapsing straight down in a free fall, but without hardly any fires anywhere on its more than forty stories – just like the videos you have seen of demolitions. A building that is barely on fire does not just drop into a neat little pile, again with all the cement turning into dust. Go to a website that shows the WTC7 falling and really look at it. Either the collapse of the WTC7 was a planned demolition, or it was magic. Trust your eyes, not any preconceived ideas of the basic decency of men in power.
The WTC certainly did have unique vulnerabilities (.pdf).
Also, I went to ground zero and the debris field was several stories high and not made up of dust at all.
WTC7 was, as I said, a major mystery. However, a demolition of that building, if it happened, doesn’t imply a demolition of the others.
WTC7 could have been brought down for other reasons, and the fact could have been covered up for a variety of reasons. The building housed a lot of things. It was damaged beyond repair.
My point is that the WTC 1 and 2 probably came down because of floor collapses at the top, which then proved unstoppable. But even if not, it is a theory that tends to make people stop thinking rather than start thinking, and is therefore counterproductive.
OK, let’s say that some floor—say, 75th—suddenly fails and plunges, along with every storey above it, the 20 or so feet to floor below. Are you telling me that you believe that that floor would stop any further collapse?
Before you answer, consider that the storeys above reinforce that which is below.
So, the floor below collapses. Perhaps there’s even a millisecond before it, too, gives way. Now, the mass bearing down has been added to. And so on. It won’t be long now that things will be moving at “near free-fall speed” (as so many people seem to think is somehow terribly suspicious).
But both towers suffered severe damage across several floors. One account from an emergency operator relates a terrified person on an upper storey screaming that the floor was collapsing, tilting to one side. That may have been the South Tower, which was leaning over just before it collapsed.
Try rigging that trick up with demolitions.
Someone at dKos mentioned the fact that if even one plane had missed its tower then the explosives would be awfully difficult to explain (though, somebody else tried to convince me that the explosives were installed as part of double-super-secret contingency plan for dealing with a catastrophic failure in one of the towers—as if the twins couldn’t perform a catastrophic failure on their own).
That the cement became pulverised is no great mystery, either. Plenty of it certainly fell out to the sides, but the majority of it was travelling straight down, shattering into ever smaller pieces, everything grinding together. It’s not surprising at all that not much was left. In that chaos, furniture was being ground into fragments.
And why do you bring attention to this, anyhow. Do you believe that only explosives could have caused that?
Read this: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?–Simple Analysis
It uses scary physics and all, but it’s really not very difficult. If you want to try to refute that then i’m all ears.
I gave you a “2” because of THIS comment you made!
First of all Boo – to my knowledge – has NEVER, spoken to anyone in the condescending and sarcastic tone you used.
Secondly, we simply do not use that kind of tone on this site. -This is my HOME Bog, and if you want respect, then please respect the rights of the rest of us.
Lastly – Boo is attempting to enter into a discourse with you. Rather than explain, offer links or some other verification, you immediately slam the door shut.
Please, upgrade your tone and discourse to a more appropriate level. Thank you.
is “Don’t be a prick”…so you come over here and post this mini screed, call Boo a moron, and then add further insult by rudely refusing to engage in civil discourse?…you, DrP, need to change your sig to DrPrick…you are the definition du jour.
Grandma M is feeling more benevolent than I today…hence the more appropriate rating.
G’day
The fact that no explanation rings true doesn’t mean explosives is the best option. It may prove to be the case, but so far there have been no reputable scientists who have come forward to say as much. And again, that isn’t evidence that it ISN’T the case. Because if that were planned, you’d be hard pressed to find someone willing to risk their career over this.
But to me, this is like arguing over how many bullets killed President Kennedy. There was a conspiracy. Who cares whether it took 4 bullets or 10, or from what angle? Find the trail, the real, documented trail, and stop wasting time speculating on the physical evidence. Find the political and historical reality.
Btw – I’m not convinced by the official story of the collapse. I find the pancake theory as ridiculous as the explosives theory. I’m waiting for more evidence to surface before believing any theory as to what happened.
Wow. I’m a new member here and I don’t quite know what to think of this previous exchange. I saw Dr. P’s diary over at dKos and he caught quite a bit of flack for it there. Someone said he’d get more respect over here. I can only conclude that conspiracy theories are universally hated by left-wing blog owners, though my sample is a bit too small to reach that conclusion.
What’s up with that? Why are bloggers so unwilling to engage in conversation about the possibilities for the collapse of the towers? I don’t get it.
Welcome, UncleBosco. If you read Booman’s comments carefully you’ll see he’s responding and suggesting alternative CT lines of inquiry, and not engaging in personal attacks as did the diarist.
Hello LibraryLil,
Thanks for the welcoming words. I see that Boo Man is not indulging in personal attacks. I really did not mean to comment on that, I’d rather stay out of it. My goal was to comment upon 2 things. #1. What I see as a reluctance by many leftie blog owners to have posts about 911 conspiracy, or any kind of conspiracy, on their blogs.
From what I’ve read here, the Boo Man is a little more permissive than most, but I’ve been wondering lately, what is it about conspiracy theory that people dislike.
Do they think they’ll be branded as a “nut” or “tin foil hat wearer?”
Is it difficult to talk about because there is so little proof?
Or is it something else that is the problem?
#2. Also, I’ve noted a great reluctance on the part of lefties to accept Dr. Stephen Smith’s chemical analysis of the materials left at the WT site that might indicate the presence of explosives.
All I’m saying is, why is there such a reluctance to have an open discussion about it here and elsewhere?
Any light shed on this phenomenon would be helpful
Please see the link i posted in my other comment.
Thanks for the explanation, Subtropolis, you make some good points and are the first person to really answer this question about why lefties are reluctant to talk about the collapse, in a way that makes sense.
Well, please don’t say “we” – you’re speaking for yourself, not for me or anyone else.
I think until we get a few scientists together with impeccable credentials, this will look like the rantings of true believers. Scientists can be mistaken, and scientists can lie. Some of the government scientists in the JFK case were so far off base that lie may not be an inapt term.
But one person’s word is just not enough, for a responsible conspiracy theorist. No matter that one person’s credentials. I’m not a scientist, so I’m not qualified to evaluate his statements. Neither is anyone else without the same training.
No – that’s simply not true. But there’s a difference between responsible putting together of evidence and wild conspiracy theories.
I don’t find the videos persuasive as to explosives, because if the floors collapsed, you’d see the same squibs. For either side (official or conspiracy) to pretend they “know” what happened there is, to me, VERY premature. It may take years before we get access to the kind of evidence that could prove that one way or another.
Videos and photos are the worst possible way to investigate anything – it’s a 2-D look at a 3D reality, and is necessarily misleading.