That’s the thing Nixon was only a handful of guys and somebody talked, As stated elsewhere how many thousands of people would have to be involved or at least seen hinky things leading up to the event and hushed up for 9/11 according to the truthers? Someone would have talked by now and not just to the crazy fringe.
1 Like
Yeah, you’re right, WTC 7 further illustrates Dirk_Winebarger’s point since it too took damage from the falling twin towers before it burnt and collapsed.
4 Likes
If every support column in that 47 story building had not failed within milliseconds of the others, it would have damaged the Post Office or Verizon buildings, separated by a streets’ width. How much taller was the building than the width of the streets?
You can see the “wheat chex” from the building in that picture. Mostly piled in its own footprint. Verizon had some blown-out windows, you’d get that from just the air rush of the skyscraper collapsing next door. Why didn’t falling debris from that building cause its shorter, neighboring buildings to collapse into their own basements?
Calling the 9/11 truthers’ claims “conspiracy theories” is offensive only in that it undeservedly dignifies those claims with the word “theory.”
“Theory” implies that the claim is based on evidence, and that it would be rejected if the evidence didn’t match. It implies consideration of other possibilities. It implies testing the claims, rather than blindly accepting what the person making the claims tells you. The “truthers” - another offensively wrong term - are best known for REFUSING to treat their claims like theories.
The “truther” (*spit*) claims are called “conspiracy theories” only because it’s shorter than “delusional claims used by the same people who used to peddle UFO and sasquatch books, videos, radio shows, lectures and trinkets, to monetize the gullible and stupid.”
1 Like
A common mistake the Truthers make is that they expect a tall building to collapse like a tree, because that’s the frame of reference most of us have for “watching tall things fall down.” But that’s now how physics works: there are major differences between a gigantic, mostly-hollow building and a mostly-solid tree. A building simply doesn’t have the kind of structural integrity to translate the downward force of gravity into a lateral tip—it crumbles first.
8 Likes
6 Likes
Sticking an explosive on a wall, declaring it a “strain gauge” and calling it a day, isn’t going to work. Building demolition involves tearing the walls apart to get at the structure. And then cutting apart cement beams to put explosives inside them, and cutting apart steel beams with torches to weaken them before wrapping explosives around them.
It’s massively disruptive, as all the furniture has to be moved away from the walls, walls get torn apart, and there’s a lot of dust and noise. For months. And it would be obvious what they’re doing.
And yet there’s no record from the thousands of people in the building that any of this happened.
You can’t use “fear of Them / They / The Conspiracy” to hide it. People would simply be reporting a massively disruptive demolition project in their workplace, not a crime. You couldn’t silence them without letting them KNOW that they had to be silent, that a crime was being committed. Which means several thousand MORE people in on the secret.
And yet none talked. As for the other thousands of people that would have to be more actively involved (building demolition and all the other things listed above, and I forgot about the task of “disappearing” a thousand or so airline passengers) some of them would have talked. Just like with the Pentagon Papers, Snowden etc., if someone saw criminal activity, they’d talk. There hasn’t even been a death-bed confession.
10 Likes
Speaking of deathbed confessions, there was one in the JFK murder. Do you remember it?
It is rarely mentioned now. It did not result in a re-opened investigation.
And as for the construction project, buildings 1&2 had been mostly empty for years. Whole floors were vacant. Construction activity would have attracted little attention, regardless of who was wearing the hard hats.
And building demolition involves more than crashing a jet into the thing, slightly off-center, having a fire that mostly finishes and goes out, and waiting an hour or five.
1 Like
And there is a difference between having every support column in a building faile at the same time, and having them slowly soften and bend/twist. Your “pancake theory” has long since been thouroughly debunked.
I take the position—without equivocation or prevarication—that what we have been told regarding 9/11, primarily referring to the actors, their intent, their backstory, the actual cause of the destruction, and Osama bin Laden…is a complete and utter fabrication.
1 Like
Still standing. Why didn’t it fall down in sympathy with its neighbor?
E. Howard Hunt. He was the CIA operative involved in the JFK assassination to which you refer.
1 Like
2 Likes
They don’t HAVE to all fail at exactly the same time, once the collapse begins the structural failure will cause a chain reaction and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Ever try to build a house of cards? It doesn’t matter which card gets knocked out of place near the bottom, the thing still isn’t going to tip over sideways like a falling tree. A building is stronger than a house of cards but a building collapse works on the same principle. Gravity pulls things down, not sideways.
6 Likes
Excellent: we can begin. Present your case, with supporting evidence.
2 Likes
Maybe going forward, we should not allow skyscrapers to be built from cards. Nor should butter be used as a substitute for structural steel, as one of the “Liars” suggested in a comment far above?
Speaking of deathbed confessions, there was one in the JFK murder. Do you remember it?
There’s a difference between deathbed confessions, and deathbed confessions that check out. Those that don’t tend not to be remembered, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t get a lot of publicity and examination when they happen.
buildings 1&2 had been mostly empty for years.
Nonsense. You’re made that up.
Whole floors were vacant
This on the other hand is not just credible, but to be expected. Few large office buildings have 100% occupancy. A company can move out, leaving a floor or several floors empty.
And building demolition involves more than crashing a jet into the thing, slightly off-centre
Building demolition doesn’t involve crashing a jet into the thing,
It’s one of the crazier aspects of truther claims: “Bombs were used to collapse the buildings. But first they crashed jets into them. Except for Building 7 - they forgot to crash a plane into it first.”
5 Likes
As I already said, they are not. But the principle is the same: the structure is mostly hollow (the point of a building is to be able to do stuff inside of it, after all) and the support system is primarily designed to counteract the downward force of gravity. The only way a tall building would tip over sideways like a falling tree would be if it had been specifically engineered to do so.
3 Likes
I can’t recall a single serious investigator suggesting bombs were used.
Cuttiing charges were used.
Security records of who came and went from the buildings in the weeks prior are lost, or not revealed. There were a few stories of nighttime activity, however. There was an IT guy who recalled a whole-building power-down notice a couple weeks before the incident. Power was going to be off over a weekend, and servers needed to be shut down.
Fire and safety personnel are on videos describing the explosions they heard just before the crash. Barry Jennings, the building engineer for WTC 7, is on video describing explosions he heard as he was escaping the building just before it crashed.
Larry Silverstein is on tape saying “A decision was made to pull it, and we watched it fall, and it was horrible”. He later claimed that he didn’t mean what it seems like he meant, but he said it.
