9/11 revisited

[Riesstiu IV]

If the US wanted a justification for war, then why would it go out of its way to destroy one of the most important structures in the nation and in the process devastate the economy afterwards? Also, why would Al-Qaeda claim responsibility for the attack? And what was too be gained out of occupying Afghanistan? Conspiracy theories involving 9/11 are simply outright fantasies that have use grainy video as evidence for support.

 

[Azadre]

If the US wanted a justification for war, then why would it go out of its way to destroy one of the most important structures in the nation and in the process devastate the economy afterwards? Also, why would Al-Qaeda claim responsibility for the attack? And what was too be gained out of occupying Afghanistan? Conspiracy theories involving 9/11 are simply outright fantasies that have use grainy video as evidence for support.

WHy would they? To make money, greed is the ultimate motivator in American politics. I am not saying I believe in the rumors, nor do I care if they are true.

 

[Xenocrates]

The US didn't want a justification for a war.

The hypothesis is that one or more interest groups within the US wanted a justification for war in order to profit themselves. There are many Americans that love their currency more that their country and all it takes is a degree of power and ruthlessness in order for them to succeed.

"A number of factors contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. These included the Cuban struggle for independence, American imperialism, and the sinking of the U.S. warship Maine." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566463/Spanish-American_War.html

Many historians agree that the Maine was sunk by Americans.

"The sinking of the Lusitania had a profound impact on public opinion in the United States. The German government apologized for the incident, but claimed its U-boat only fired one torpedo and the second explosion was a result of a secret cargo of heavy munitions on the ship. If this true, Britain was guilty of breaking the rules of warfare by using a civilian ship to carry ammunition. British authorities rejected this charge and claimed that the second explosion was caused by coal dust igniting in the ship's almost empty bunkers."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWlusitania.htm

The loading of weaponry was known to the British and it's hard to believe that some Americans didn't know about it too. In other words, the ship was made into a legitimate target for the Germans by the British and by some Americans.

In Darwinian terms it is a perverse form of group selection!

Seriously the destruction of less important buildings wouldn't have generated the same enthusiasm for war. None of this proves that the buildings were demolished, despite it 'looking suspicious', just a caution to keep an open mind!

 

[FriendlyFire]

this sounds exactly like the official version. However, from the video I understand that

1. the support for the Twin Towers came from 47 steel beams in the center of the building.
2. the temperature wasn't high enough to melt the steel beams
3. the pancake theory can not explain the free fall collapse
4. the 47 steel beams could not have collapsed like this, at least they should have still stuck out
5. why did the building next to it collapse the same way (a 47-storey building with fires at only 2 floors)

whatever it was, the official version does not convince me at all. The civil engineers in this forum could maybe enlighten me. It's the scientific explanations that are intruiging.

Scientist explain that steel losses half its strength once the temp reaches a certain heat level.

Tower design lead it to collapse in a cascade fashion straight down.

Collapse of building next to it, is still unexplained
As well as selling the WTC metal as scrap, meaning no conclusive means of testing the steel.

 

[Irish Caesar]

What could testing the steel have proven?

 

[Elrohir]

"A number of factors contributed to the U.S. decision to go to war against Spain. These included the Cuban struggle for independence, American imperialism, and the sinking of the U.S. warship Maine." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566463/Spanish-American_War.html

Many historians agree that the Maine was sunk by Americans.

And many more believe it was an accidental internal explosion from the gunpoweder and coal inside the ship. The idea that Americans bombed their own ship is patently absurd.

I wouldn't at all be suprised about the Lusitania thing though. The Brits always were pretty sneaky when it came to things like that. I don't think the American public would have greatly cared if the Lusitania was a legitimate target though, they were too hungry for retribution. And the Zimmerman note didn't help much either.

 

[FriendlyFire]

What could testing the steel have proven?

Disproved the therory that plane carried explosive: (non Oxyidation of steel)
Proved that the steel were weakened by heat. (able to determind reason for collase conclusively)
Improve future construction
Improve fire fighting system
Improve future manufacturing of steel
Check fire retardation of building and how it stood up to heat. (explain why the building stood forx X time)

 

[Irish Caesar]

Fair enough. Was there a call to keep the steel for a while to run some tests before scrapping it that was ignored?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Fair enough. Was there a call to keep the steel for a while to run some tests before scrapping it that was ignored?

yeah there were big headlines about it.
At that time Bush was actively block an enquiring into the collapse of WTC.

Saddly the 9/11 commission report on collapse of WTC was rather "lacking"
people are still calling for it to be done in a more conclusive fashion.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Oh. Yes, that's...odd.

Actually, a friend of mine is reading a book about the holes in the Commission's report. Apparently there's a lot that hasn't really been investigated. I wasn't sure what that entailed, though, so thanks for filling me in.

 

[bhsup]

Why keep the steel for testing? We know what brought the towers down, so there was no need to test other than to humor people who believe in the conspiracy theories.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Improve future construction
Improve fire fighting system
Improve future manufacturing of steel
Check fire retardation of building and how it stood up to heat. (explain why the building stood forx X time)

I think those are decent reasons.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm all open minded, but it will be very tough to convince me that the collapse of the tower wasn't the result of the plane crashes.

Even outside technical details, I fail to see any rationality in there.

 

[Xenocrates]

Even outside technical details, I fail to see any rationality in there.

Can you see the rationality in anyone attacking the twin towers?

Who had the most to gain, or who is thick enough to believe that they can gain from this:

“[9/11 created] the kind of opportunities that The Second World War offered, to refashion the world” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to The New York Times, 10/11/01

“Think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities” - Condoleezza Rice to senior members of the National Security Council in reference to September 11th, 2001.

“The events of September 11th, 2001 opened vast new opportunities” - stated in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in 2002.

“A blessing in disguise” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in reference to September 11th, 2001, in an interview with Jim Lehrer on the second anniversary of 9/11

Hmmm I wonder!

 

[Marla_Singer]

Can you see the rationality in anyone attacking the twin towers?

Who had the most to gain, or who is thick enough to believe that they can gain from this:

“[9/11 created] the kind of opportunities that The Second World War offered, to refashion the world” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to The New York Times, 10/11/01

“Think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities” - Condoleezza Rice to senior members of the National Security Council in reference to September 11th, 2001.

“The events of September 11th, 2001 opened vast new opportunities” - stated in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in 2002.

“A blessing in disguise” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in reference to September 11th, 2001, in an interview with Jim Lehrer on the second anniversary of 9/11

Hmmm I wonder!

Well, to start a war I guess it was enough to let the terrorists send their plane on the towers, assuming your option is right, there's no need to hide explosives in the towers in order to guarantee their collapse.

Furthermore, when you see a planned demolition, explosions are clearly visible, and in the case of the WTC, find me any image of those explosions (outside those of the planes crashes of course).

Planes have created wide holes of several stories in the structure, causing a fire at a high temperature fueled with the plane gasoline, it's not so irrational to imagine the structure wouldn't bear it and break. Once broken, it's not so irrational to imagine the structure couldn't resist to the weight of several floors falling on it.

But anyway, we're getting into technical details in here. Let's imagine that the "official explanation" is part of a conspiracy. Then what would it have to hide ? Seriously ?

 

[ThERat]

Why keep the steel for testing? We know what brought the towers down, so there was no need to test other than to humor people who believe in the conspiracy theories.

Then why after each airplane crash are very detailed investiagtions carried out? Your argument makes no sense, of course invastigations in any case make sense, regardless of the outcome. As mentioned above, a good investigation can only be beneficial.

Let's imagine that the "official explanation" is part of a conspiracy. Then what would it have to hide ? Seriously ?

The issue why I get suspicious is due to your current governments track record. The war in Iraq was based on a campaign full of lies (remember the remarkable speech by Powell in front of the UN showing us those chemical lab trucks). So, there is enough reason to question officials versions.

 

[Irish Caesar]

And it would be tough to cover up a situation when so many people would be involved. If everyone in the government knows about the cover-up (or even more than a few CIA agents), they'll talk eventually.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The issue why I get suspicious is due to your current governments track record. The war in Iraq was based on a campaign full of lies (remember the remarkable speech by Powell in front of the UN showing us those chemical lab trucks). So, there is enough reason to question officials versions.

Well my government's track record definitly sucks, but I guess you're mixing up with the US one on that specific case. I'm French !

 

[cgannon64]

3. The very quick connection to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, IIRC, no more than three hours after the attacks.

"Osama bin laden Determined to Strike US"

It might take a dumbass not to realize what that meant before he struck, but it doesn't take a genius to realize what it meant after.

It does not seem beyond imagining that explosives were placed in the buildings to ensure that they collapsed with a 'small' footprint rather than topple, causing more deaths.

I'm not saying that it's what happened but it's concievable that the planes did not directly cause the collapse.

1. They were designed to fall within a small footprint.
2. Explosives in the basement failed to knock them down in 1994.

 

[Marla_Singer]

"Osama bin laden Determined to Strike US"

It make take a dumbass not to realize what that meant before he struck, but it doesn't take a genius to realize what it meant after.

I remember having heard a radio show about Bin Laden few months before the 9-11. They were saying the CIA considered him as the #1 Public Ennemy since the 1994 bombing. The show was picturing him as a billionaire living in a cave and hating the US since the Gulf war. After the African embassies attacks and the USS Cole, it's not as if Bin Laden hadn't already attacked the US. It's rather natural he became fast the first suspect once the second plane crashed, proving then it wasn't an accident but a terrorist attack.