Q for Shades about 911 conspiracy

[_Bryan Inks]

See here.

Interesting.

I'm reading this now.

[_Gadianton]

If Bin Laden could have brought the buildings down with just explosives, why the additional headache just to add shock value by throwing planes at it? If his men were so good, that they can rig a building and bring it down such that most scientists couldn't figure out how they did it, what are they waiting for? Where's the next high-tech bombing? And why, go to the additional risk of getting caught for a very, very little additional payoff, of rigging building 7? There's no way it could have been bin laden.

How about the US government? Bush's controllers need an excuse to go to war. They want to make sure the job is done right. At most, why not just let the planes do their job? Would there have been that much less anger from the American people? And then, what if the job failed? Wouldn't there be increased building security, investigations of the buildings, and a chance of discovering explosives of sophistication that couldn't be pinned on Bin Laden? Were parts of the pentagon also rigged with explosives? Would a success against the pentagon have also not out-weighed the benefit of letting the towers go?

The most likely candidate to me would be the building owners themselves. Knowing the buildings were "big targets" for either a plane or another bombing attempt, they rigged all of them years in advance, as a back up plan to maximize insurance recovery. But why not wait a little longer, until more people could get out? They seemed to have waited for building 7.

[_richardMdBorn]

The most likely candidate to me would be the building owners themselves. Knowing the buildings were "big targets" for either a plane or another bombing attempt, they rigged all of them years in advance, as a back up plan to maximize insurance recovery. But why not wait a little longer, until more people could get out? They seemed to have waited for building 7.

the buildings had just been bought by Silverstein. If there had been a plot, he would have ensured that there was no issue about one event or two (which was in the courts for years).

[_Sethbag]

Apparently, you're not at all familiar with what I was talking about, so I'd recommend you look into a little bit more before you try to discredit something.

Answer the question, please. Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:02 AM, and it didn't collapse until 9:59 AM, after burning for 56 minutes. The recordings clearly demonstrate that the collapse began on the floors where the plane impacted the tower. Please answer for me how a complicated set of demolition charges, or thermite packs, or whatever the hell the conspiracy theorists think "really" brought down the towers, survived a Boeing 767 shredding itself at like 500 mph on the very support pillars the demolition charges would have had to have been rigged to, then survived 56 minutes of raging inferno including the burning of thousands and thousands of gallons of jet fuel, before finally going off and initiating the collapse. However unlikely you think other aspects of the collapse might have been, that one is even more unlikely.

And the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after its impact, also starting on the very floors where the impact occurred. How did the demolition charges, or thermite packs, or whatever people think were used, survive 102 minutes of 767 impact and raging inferno intact?

Or are you guys suggesting that the demolition packs actually went off, right there in the exact floors where the planes impacted, just before impact, and then the buildings still took 56 and 102 minutes actually to go down?

The conspiracy theories about this are mind-bogglingly absurd. I knew Professor Steven Jones at BYU about 15 years ago, and I'm saddened by his decline into this kind of bizarre theorizing. He was a brilliant guy. He's sold himself out for a mess of pottage which doesn't even exist.

[_Some Schmo]

I've looked at both sides of this issue pretty carefully and I have to say that I don't know what the hell to believe. The problem with both sides is that there is a ton of information and assumptions you have to take at face value (stuff about physics, history, engineering, etc) in order to support the arguments built on top of them, and I'm not convinced about all the base assumptions yet for either side.

All I do know is that the current administration had ridden this 9/11 horse into the Middle East for several years now, and it sure feels fishy... but I'm not one to put too much stock in my feelings. The fact is, the last thing on earth I want to believe is that someone in our own country staged a terrorist attack.

In the end, all I can say about it is that I just don't know. I will say, however, that I wouldn't be so cocky or dismissive of people who wonder about the "official story."

[_EAllusion]

If Bin Laden could have brought the buildings down with just explosives, why the additional headache just to add shock value by throwing planes at it? If his men were so good, that they can rig a building and bring it down such that most scientists couldn't figure out how they did it, what are they waiting for? Where's the next high-tech bombing? And why, go to the additional risk of getting caught for a very, very little additional payoff, of rigging building 7? There's no way it could have been bin laden.

How about the US government? Bush's controllers need an excuse to go to war. They want to make sure the job is done right. At most, why not just let the planes do their job? Would there have been that much less anger from the American people? And then, what if the job failed? Wouldn't there be increased building security, investigations of the buildings, and a chance of discovering explosives of sophistication that couldn't be pinned on Bin Laden? Were parts of the pentagon also rigged with explosives? Would a success against the pentagon have also not out-weighed the benefit of letting the towers go?

The most likely candidate to me would be the building owners themselves. Knowing the buildings were "big targets" for either a plane or another bombing attempt, they rigged all of them years in advance, as a back up plan to maximize insurance recovery. But why not wait a little longer, until more people could get out? They seemed to have waited for building 7.

Are you serious?

[_Moniker]

If Bin Laden could have brought the buildings down with just explosives, why the additional headache just to add shock value by throwing planes at it? If his men were so good, that they can rig a building and bring it down such that most scientists couldn't figure out how they did it, what are they waiting for? Where's the next high-tech bombing? And why, go to the additional risk of getting caught for a very, very little additional payoff, of rigging building 7? There's no way it could have been bin laden.

How about the US government? Bush's controllers need an excuse to go to war. They want to make sure the job is done right. At most, why not just let the planes do their job? Would there have been that much less anger from the American people? And then, what if the job failed? Wouldn't there be increased building security, investigations of the buildings, and a chance of discovering explosives of sophistication that couldn't be pinned on Bin Laden? Were parts of the pentagon also rigged with explosives? Would a success against the pentagon have also not out-weighed the benefit of letting the towers go?

The most likely candidate to me would be the building owners themselves. Knowing the buildings were "big targets" for either a plane or another bombing attempt, they rigged all of them years in advance, as a back up plan to maximize insurance recovery. But why not wait a little longer, until more people could get out? They seemed to have waited for building 7.

Are you serious?

I'm guessing not.

[_Blixa]

While I don't think the event was planned and executed by the current administration, the sad part is how just almost plausible it seems. I don't see them as entirely unculpable, my guess being something more along the lines of US intelligence agencies and government knowing and "allowing" it. At this point, though, my concern is with the mileage that has been gotten out of it, its use as a tool of legitmation of a pretty wide agenda of problematic (to say the least) policies and practices.

I rarely go below Houston, so it was rather unusual that I found myself on the further reaches of Chinatown a few days after the event. The magnitude of the thing was brought home palpably in the quality of the air: thick, hot and metallic.

[_EAllusion]

I'm guessing not.

He is. I misread what he was saying.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I haven't as of yet looked at these links. My desk top is full of pages of links I have been sent in my emails. But I would like to say that I heard Bush was warned about a month before it happened, he was given a full report. Also I read somewhere that a Mormon was involved. I can't quite remeber where. But I read he owned the private airports where the hijackers trained to fly. He was also into a lot of other dodgy stuff and increadibly in debt, yet he could buy people rolex watches.