Below is a copy of a long bunch of comments I’ve deleted from the thread below my post He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.
The copied comments below deal mainly with the question of how thermite, etc., could have been planted in World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 without being noticed by many witnesses.
Note: I’m currently a “demolition agnostic.” I don’t claim to know what, if anything, was done to the WTC buildings besides hitting the Twin Towers with jet planes. But I consider the question to be worthy of serious research.
To facilitate focussed discussion, I aim to keep discussion of general a priori objections out of comment threads below posts that deal with specific positive evidence (or possible positive evidence). To that end, I’m moving a bunch of off-topic comments here.
The first two comments below have not been deleted from the original thread, but I am including them here to provide context.
To the layman, the issue of the spherules is baffling. There are, however, some points which can be looked at.
The first issue relates to whether the substances present were unique to thermite. That appears not to be the case. There is no substance found that one would not expect to find in vast buildings such as the WTC.
The second issue relates to whether the particular spherules found clearly indicate the presence of thermite, and that the thermite was used to destroy the building’s structure. This is a highly technical matter. While Professor Jones believes that the presence of the spherules undoubtedly indicates thermite as used for demolition, others – equally qualified – disagree.
On the third issue, however, we are able to form a judgement. Is it plausible that the two towers be prepared for demolition using thermite, in some hitherto unknown way, without the users of the building seeing any sign of it. The thermite would remain unaffected by the fires in the building, until it was ignited in order to cause the collapse, without any visible signs to the thousands of observers. Any layman can make a judgement on that.
Comment by westprog99 — January 31, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
westprog99 wrote:
The first issue relates to whether the substances present were unique to thermite. That appears not to be the case. There is no substance found that one would not expect to find in vast buildings such as the WTC.
Thermite itself is basically just powdered aluminum plus iron rust. Aluminium and iron rust are, of course, both very common substances.
The second issue relates to whether the particular spherules found clearly indicate the presence of thermite, and that the thermite was used to destroy the building’s structure. This is a highly technical matter. While Professor Jones believes that the presence of the spherules undoubtedly indicates thermite as used for demolition, others – equally qualified – disagree.
Correct, which is why I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude on this question.
I’ve seen claims in the JREF forum that iron spherules can form at temperatures lower than the melting point of iron. Offhand this claim looks very strange to me. If iron were being formed (from iron oxide) at temperatures lower than the melting point of iron, why would the iron be spherical in that case? Seems to me it would more likely take random shapes. On the other hand, it’s easy to see how a sphere could form from a droplet of molten iron flying through the air, given the droplet’s surface tension.
Still, I’m not a chemist, so I could be wrong about the above. But I do wonder how iron formed in chemical reactions at temperatures lower than the melting point of iron could end up forming spheres rather than other shapes.
On the third issue, however, we are able to form a judgement. Is it plausible that the two towers be prepared for demolition using thermite, in some hitherto unknown way, without the users of the building seeing any sign of it.
If planted in the core, this would be easy. It could easily be disguised as elevator maintenance. The perimeter walls would be harder to access, except that the spandrels could perhaps be accessed via crawlspaces (if indeed there were crawlspaces). Other access to perimeter columns would have needed to take place in tenants’ offices, which is indeed a problem, but perhaps it could have been disguised as electrical work or some other kind of maintenance that requires drilling holes in walls. So a real investigation would need to determine what kinds of maintenance work (or alleged maintenance) work were done in the buildings in the months leading up to 9/11.
The thermite would remain unaffected by the fires in the building, until it was ignited in order to cause the collapse,
Whether that’s possible and, if so, how, is a technical question.
without any visible signs to the thousands of observers.
Any witnesses to the latter inside the building would not have escaped in time to survive. Outside the building, well, there was that mysterious bright yellow liquid pouring from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Of course, we can’t know for sure what that was.
I don’t think “easy” applies to any of it. To enter the building disguised as elevator maintenance means that the real elevator maintenance crew must be kept out of the way.
To sneak into the building disguised as workmen would be easy enough. To carry enough thermite to wire every column on every floor would be a massive operation. I am not aware of any evidence that any such operation took place, apart from a single claim of a power outage on one of the towers on one weekend.
Comment by westprog99 — February 1, 2008 @ 8:07 am
westprog99 wrote:
I don’t think “easy” applies to any of it. To enter the building disguised as elevator maintenance means that the real elevator maintenance crew must be kept out of the way.
This would have been easy if someone in a position of authority over the buildings (e.g. Silverstein, or some key person in the building management office) were in on it.
To carry enough thermite to wire every column on every floor would be a massive operation.
I don’t think it would have been necessary to “wire” (or whatever) every column on every floor. Contrary to the misinfo that all the steel was chopped up into 30 foot lengths, there are photos showing the perimeter walls coming down in some pretty large pieces. (See “Ready for shipment”? – just not true in my blog post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.)
I am not aware of any evidence that any such operation took place, apart from a single claim of a power outage on one of the towers on one weekend.
Building maintenance is not something that most people who work in a building pay much attention to, so there’s no reason why we should expect to have heard much about it. But it’s something a real investigation should certainly look into.
It would require a lot more than one person in a position of authority. Silverstein wasn’t the concierge. He wouldn’t have dealt directly with lift maintenance. There would have been large numbers of people involved in running the WTC.
Building maintenance is not something that’s regarded as significant at the time, but that doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t remember it afterwards. Thousands of people escaped from the part of the building which was supposedly sabotaged. Nobody saw _anything_ suspicious.
Having been in an office where a few partitions were being moved, I remember it as being noisy, messy and extremely inconvenient. The work didn’t involve access to major structural components.
As to whether it would be necessary to wire every column on every floor – well, if the impact and fire was enough to bring down the WTC, then it wasn’t necessary to wire up any of the building.
Comment by westprog99 — February 1, 2008 @ 11:49 am
westprog99 wrote:
It would require a lot more than one person in a position of authority.
It would require just one person: (1) the person in charge of scheduling maintenance contractors or (2) someone in a position fo authority over that person.
One person is a bare minimum. Perhaps two or three people would be more likely, but certainly no more than that would have been needed.
Silverstein wasn’t the concierge.
The concierge didn’t need to know anything except that a certain contractor was authorized to come in on a particular day.
He wouldn’t have dealt directly with lift maintenance.
Likewise the normal maintenance people didn’t need to know any details about outside contractors, other than when they were scheduled to come in.
There would have been large numbers of people involved in running the WTC.
Of course, but I can’t think of a good reason why all or most of them would have needed to know very many details about any particular maintenance contractor.
Building maintenance is not something that’s regarded as significant at the time, but that doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t remember it afterwards. Thousands of people escaped from the part of the building which was supposedly sabotaged. Nobody saw _anything_ suspicious.
If the operation were sufficiently well-disguised, most people would not notice anything suspicious. Anyhow, some people have talked about things they saw that they considered suspicious.
Having been in an office where a few partitions were being moved, I remember it as being noisy, messy and extremely inconvenient. The work didn’t involve access to major structural components.
The kind work I envision would not necessarily involve moving partitions, but would have to involve drilling holes in the outer wall. This would most likely be electrical work, or some such thing. Anyhow, as I said, I think this would have needed to be done on only a minority of the floors.
As to whether it would be necessary to wire every column on every floor – well, if the impact and fire was enough to bring down the WTC, then it wasn’t necessary to wire up any of the building.
You can’t envision an in-between case? Even standard controlled demolitions don’t necessarily involve wiring every single floor. (See How Building Implosions Work by Tom Harris.) And what happened to the WTC buildings, especially the Twin Towers, certainly wasn’t a standard commercial controlled demolition.
I cannot see any possible way whereby a single person could allow a demolition crew into the building without a huge trail being left. The WTC security would have had to know who was being allowed access to the building. They would know the normal contractors who would be emp1oyed to do work. If the contractors pretended to be with Acme Elevator Maintenance, then they have to cope with the possibility of security contacting Acme with inquiries. Acme would know (and they would still have the records) that they did not have a visit scheduled at that time.
Whatever “suspicious events” have been talked about, they didn’t include hitherto unknown contractors doing massive work all over the building.
It’s certainly the case that the WTC collapse wasn’t a conventional demolition. It had to be able to destroy the building invisibly and inaudibly. It had to work remotely. It had to be able to survive a plane impact and a massive fire without either failing or detonating prematurely. If such a demolition technique existed, it seems unlikely that it would be less conspicuous than the conventional methods.
Comment by westprog99 — February 4, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
westprog99 wrote:
I cannot see any possible way whereby a single person could allow a demolition crew into the building without a huge trail being left. The WTC security would have had to know who was being allowed access to the building. They would know the normal contractors who would be emp1oyed to do work. If the contractors pretended to be with Acme Elevator Maintenance, then they have to cope with the possibility of security contacting Acme with inquiries.
Why would they need to pretend to be the normal contractors? The security folks could have been told that some “special elevator consultant” was coming in, in lieu of the normal elevator contractor.
A real investigation would look for any unusual contractors. It would also look into the backgrounds of the normal contractors as well.
Whatever “suspicious events” have been talked about, they didn’t include hitherto unknown contractors doing massive work all over the building.
Most people in the building wouldn’t know the difference between “known” and “unknown” contractors. How “massive” the work would need to be, and how “massive” it would appear to passers-by, would depend on exactly what was done.
There was at least one report of unusual amounts of dust in the building in the weeks leading up to 9/11, if I recall correctly. I’ll need to try to find out more details on this.
In any case, work by various contractors in the building isn’t something we should necessarily expect to see “reports” of, unless some investigative reporter were to make a specific point of looking into this.
It had to be able to destroy the building invisibly and inaudibly.
Inaudibly? There were plenty of reports of sounds of explosions; the only question is what they were.
But it would indeed have made more sense to use a technique relying on some sort of secondary arson rather than explosives.
Most people in the building wouldn’t know who the contractors should be, but the people responsible for letting them into the building would.
Should there be an investigation into what the people who let contractors into the WTC saw? How could such an investigation be trusted? If the FBI issue a statement saying that there are no suspicious circumstances associated with contractors at the WTC, how can the people who suspect the FBI of complicity trust the report?
It is always possible for a private investigation to ask such questions. Put an ad in the New York papers asking for anyone working in the WTC who noticed unusual contractors to contact a box number.
However, I _would_ expect unusual contractor activity to be reported if any such activity had happened.
Comment by westprog99 — February 4, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
There were reports of explosions, which preceded the collapses for some time. Such explosions or at least violent noises were to be expected when buildings had a massive fire and structural damage.
What wasn’t to be heard were the characteristic sharp sounds of demolition charges immediately preceding the collapse. That’s what effectively rules out the explosive demolition hypothesis.
The secondary arson hypothesis requires that the fires on lower levels not be visible from outside. Such fires would have to be extremely intense if they were to instantly melt structural steel.
Comment by westprog99 — February 4, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Any bogus contractors who setup the three buildings for demolition would have been extremely visible by many WTC employees. I cannot believe that they wouldn’t have spoken about it by now. Wherever such preparations for demolition were taking place, they would have been highly visible, leaving a lot more traces than a bit of dust.
Comment by westprog99 — February 4, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
I’ll reply to all three of your comments at once.
westprog99 wrote:
Most people in the building wouldn’t know who the contractors should be, but the people responsible for letting them into the building would.
The security people would have no reason to object to any unusual contractors, if those contractors were authorized by someone in a position of authority. There’s no reason why special consultants couldn’t plausibly have been brought in now and then. Indeed, one would have expected there to be some special consultants brought in, given the changeover in management.
Should there be an investigation into what the people who let contractors into the WTC saw? How could such an investigation be trusted?
It would have to be a truly independent investigation, such as the one that would be created by the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative.
There were reports of explosions, which preceded the collapses for some time. Such explosions or at least violent noises were to be expected when buildings had a massive fire and structural damage.
What wasn’t to be heard were the characteristic sharp sounds of demolition charges immediately preceding the collapse. That’s what effectively rules out the explosive demolition hypothesis.
I’m aware of these objection. I have not yet studied the all the available evidence thoroughly enough to verify the latter objection, especially for WTC 7. If indeed it’s true, then it does rule out the explosive demolition hypothesis, but does not rule out what I will refer to as the secondary arson hypothesis.
The secondary arson hypothesis requires that the fires on lower levels not be visible from outside. Such fires would have to be extremely intense if they were to instantly melt structural steel.
It would not be necessary to melt the steel, but just to make sure that the steel got sufficiently weakened in key places. The use of something like thermite could easily satisfy this requirement, it seems to me. As for hiding it, it could be hidden in the core and/or crawlspaces, or possibly inside some of the columns themselves (accessible via bolt-access holes). (See my review of Max Photon’s site.)
In WTC 7, there were no windows on the 5th floor, so all sorts of things could have been done in all sorts of places on the 5th floor while remaining hidden.Any bogus contractors who setup the three buildings for demolition would have been extremely visible by many WTC employees.
That would depend on exactly what they were doing, and how, and how well-disguised it was. In any case, most passers-by, including most employees, are unlikely to question the details of what a worker is doing.
I’ll reply seperately to the points raised.
Firstly, it’s unlikely that security would have objected to properly authorised special contractors carrying large amounts of equipment. They would have checked their papers and let them in.
However, they would undoubtedly have remembered them after the WTC came down.
But shouldn’t there be an investigation to see if this is true?
No. You don’t start another investigation on the basis that you didn’t like the results of the first one and want to check on something that is pure supposition. There is no evidence of special secret contractors.
However, anyone who disagrees can always contact the security staff at the WTC and ask them.
Comment by westprog99 — February 7, 2008 @ 10:48 am
The trouble with the hidden thermite that will just melt a bit of steel on floor five is that when we reduce the theory to something that’s possible, it becomes redundant.
There is ample evidence of massive structural damage to WTC7. There’s ample evidence of massive fires. Why assume that a small amount of thermite, hidden on the fifth floor, would make the slightest difference?
This is another area where it’s perfectly open to the Truth Movement to do their own investigating. Retain a demolition expert, and ask him to devise a scheme for destroying WTC7 which would fit the observed facts.
Comment by westprog99 — February 7, 2008 @ 10:52 am
westprog99 wrote:
You don’t start another investigation on the basis that you didn’t like the results of the first one
There are plenty of things wrong with the 9/11 Commission besides its “results.” But that will be a topic for a future blog post.
However, anyone who disagrees can always contact the security staff at the WTC and ask them.
Tracking down the security staff of buildings that don’t currently exist could take quite a bit of doing. I’ll see if I can find anyone I know, here in New York, who is interested and has both the time and investigative skills necessary to do this.
There is ample evidence of massive structural damage to WTC7.
There was structural damage. Exactly how “massive” it was is uncertain, due to an absence of clear photos of the south side, where most of the damage was, and which also was the leeward side, hence obscured by smoke.
There’s ample evidence of massive fires.
But where did all these “massive fires” (actually, numerous relatively small, scattered fires, for the most part) come from? The 2004 NIST prelim report specifically notes an absence of diesel smells, so the fires apparently didn’t start with the diesel tanks. The 2004 NIST prelim report also reports quite a few fires in different places, scattered over many floors, during the first two or three hours. The sheer number of distinct and apparently unconnected fires suggests (though it does not prove) arson.
Why assume that a small amount of thermite, hidden on the fifth floor, would make the slightest difference?
If hidden on the fifth floor, the amount need not have been small. The difference it could have made, perhaps, is that it could have attacked the transitional structure in a relatively symmetrical way, resulting in a more symmetrical implosion than would be likely to happen as a result of purely “natural” and very asymmetrical fires. From the perpetrators’ point of view, the point might simply have been to ensure that the building collapsed, which otherwise would have been iffy, given that WTC 7 was supposed to be a fire-resistant building.
By the way, I’m sorry about the delay in your comments getting through. For whatever strange reason, WordPress sees your comments as spam. I do check the spam area about once a day and let your comments through when I find them there.
It doesn’t really matter where the fires originated – a typical office environment has ample material to keep a fire going.
To wire WTC7 on the assumption that there would be fire and damage, and that it could be invisibly managed in order to assure the destruction of the building, but in a neat way that wouldn’t cause excessive damage in the area seems far fetched to the point of absurdity.
What if the firemen had put out the fire? What if firemen trying to put out the fire had found the demolition charges? I can’t see any way in which the plan makes any sense.
Comment by westprog99 — February 11, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
westprog99 wrote:
It doesn’t really matter where the fires originated – a typical office environment has ample material to keep a fire going.
When a fire originates in more than one place, that’s usually a sign of arson. Purely natural fires usually originate in just one place.
In the case of WTC 7, it’s possible that fires might have been started naturally in more than one place, because WTC 7 might have been hit by flaming debris in more than one place. However, it’s unlikely that most of the debris that hit WTC 7 was on fire. Therefore, even in the case of WTC 7, a large number of unconnected fires, early in the day, would still be suspicious.
To wire WTC7 on the assumption that there would be fire and damage, and that it could be invisibly managed in order to assure the destruction of the building, but in a neat way that wouldn’t cause excessive damage in the area seems far fetched to the point of absurdity.
Avoiding “excessive damage” might not even have been what the arsonists had in mind. From the point of view of the perpetrators, the purpose of causing an straight-down implosion might have been to maximize destruction of the building itself, rather than to minimize damage to surrounding buildings.
My current suspicion is that fires may have been started first on various floors higher than the 5th floor, perhaps for the purpose of destroying specific offices, and then, later, shortly before the final collapse, some very hot-burning incendiary devices may have been set off under the diagonal beams of the big transitional-structure trusses on the 5th floor, thereby causing all the core columns to sink down.
As for your various what-if’s, my guess is that the timing was controlled remotely and on-the-fly, to deal with various contingencies. For example, if there were a possibility that the fires could have been fought, then in that case the perpetrators might have opted to set everything off at once, to overwhelm the firefighters. On the other hand, because the fires fought, the perpetrators might have decided to wait a while before setting the final fires on the fifth floor, so as to make the collapse look more “natural.”
“my guess is that the timing was controlled remotely and on-the-fly, to deal with various contingencies.”
This is where I, personally, consider the likelihood has now become vanishingly small. The building would have to be prewired to cope with multiple contingencies – all of which would have to be allowed for in advance. In a situation where the experts on the ground – the firemen – didn’t know exactly what was going on, some remote monitoring would be able to control the situation. How would this monitoring take place? When the building is on fire and damaged, this monitoring equipment continues to operate flawlessly. No trace of it is to be found in the wreckage.
If this is the alternative to WTC7 being destroyed by debris damage and fire, then I have no difficulty in choosing which is more probable.
Comment by westprog99 — February 12, 2008 @ 11:20 am
westprog99 wrote:
How would this monitoring take place?
From a window of some not-too-far-away building, maybe?
In my post Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real? and in comments below it, there’s a discussion about a video that was allegedly recorded from a window of a building near WTC 7. If that video is genuine (or even just slightly altered, for that matter), then it proves that it was possible to monitor WTC 7 from a nearby building.
From a window? How could the conditions inside WTC7 be monitored effectively just by eyeballing the exterior? Where would it be possible to safely view the side of the building damaged by the WTC collapses?
Yes, it was certainly possible to _see_ WTC7 quite clearly. However, it would not be possible from the vantage point of the video to detect the levels of internal structural damage, and to balance the collapse accordingly.
Comment by westprog99 — February 12, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Conditions inside WTC 7 could not be monitored from a window of a nearby building, that is correct. What could have been monitored from a window of a nearby building was what the firefighters were doing. In other words, the sort of information needed in order to make strategic decisions such as whether to set everything off immediately or whether, on the other hand, just to start a bunch of fires on upper floors, then wait 7 hours to finish the job on the 5th floor and perhaps lower. (I’m assuming here that whatever was then done on the 5th floor was timed in order to make the collapse as symmetrical as possible, if indeed such timing was feasible.)
I’m trying to visualise a gang of renegade CIA agents watching out a window as firemen rush around, listening to the radio transmissions, and trying to get some idea as to how damaged WTC7 was, while huge (thought not pyroclastic) clouds of dust enveloped the area, and from this have a perfect understanding of how to make sure that WTC7 collapsed in a neat heap without anyone noticing. I just can’t see it.
If WTC7 was coming down anyway, from fire and impact damage, that would be quite sufficient to destroy the papers and/or get the insurance. But unless Acme Insurance had a no-payout-on-asymetric-collapse clause, who cares if the building comes down sideways?
Comment by westprog99 — February 13, 2008 @ 11:35 am
westprog99 wrote:
I’m trying to visualise a gang of renegade CIA agents watching out a window as firemen rush around, listening to the radio transmissions, and trying to get some idea as to how damaged WTC7 was,
Knowing how damaged it was might not have been necessary, if the perpetrators had already determined in advance that, for example, an attack on all the diagonal beams of all the transitional-structure trusses would be sufficient to implode the entire building.
and from this have a perfect understanding of how to make sure that WTC7 collapsed in a neat heap
As you’re probably aware, the heap was not so neat. Other buildings were damaged, one of them (Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway) irreparably.
If WTC7 was coming down anyway, from fire and impact damage, that would be quite sufficient to destroy the papers and/or get the insurance.
The perpetrators would have had no way of knowing, in advance, whether the fires they set higher up in the building were sufficient to bring down the building. (After all, never before has a skyscraper fire caused total collapse.) Hence the need for an additional step, involving direct attack on key structural members, to ensure that the building indeed collapsed.
Are to answer Mark’s question here?
Can you tell me one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?
Comment by ref1 — February 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
(Note: The above comment was in reference to a spat between Mark Roberts and myself, discussed in the thread Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts.)
For one good example that I’ve already blogged about, see my post Bush at Booker School on the morning of 9/11 and the subsequent comment thread. See especially this summary comment which I just now added.
Other examples can be found elsewhere on this blog.
On another subject, please check your email regarding two comments of yours that I deleted and would like to request that you re-post in a modified form.
Why would conspirators need to destroy the building? If they can set fires in the relevant areas, then they can destroy all the papers that need destroying ahead of time. There’s no geopolitical advantage to the collapse of WTC7. It went almost unnoticed at the time, unsurprisingly – it was much smaller than 1 & 2, and there was no loss of life.
What was wrong with just setting fires on the relevant floors? Let the building burn out. Why did it need to come down?
In order to make the deliberate demolition of WTC7 remotely credible, there has to be at least one possible story that might be true. It might not be the correct one, but we need to be able to imagine at least one. In the case of WTC7, we have a number of fragments, but how can we make a coherent narrative? Can we visualise conspirators – whose presumed aims involve destroying a handful of papers – setting charges and firebombs all over the building, allowing for a vast range of possibilities – and they would somehow be certain that just enough debris would strike the building to make its collapse plausible, but not enough to make it certain, and that the damage wouldn’t expose or damage the demolition charges…
I find that the harder one tries to visualise any way that the story is true, the more absurd it seems. It might be possible to make an action thriller in which such a story happens, but a reviewer would say that “The viewer is swept along by the excitement, but can’t help noticing the gaping holes in the plot”.
Comment by westprog99 — February 15, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Hypothetical motive for destroying WTC 7:
My guess is that, from the point of view of the planners, there might have been a lot of unknowns, and that these unknowns were dealt with via redundancy.
The planners might not have known, for sure, whether the hijackers would succeed in hijacking the planes, and, if so, whether they would succeed in crashing into the buildings, and, if so, whether the resulting damage and fires (plus whatever devices might have been planted in the Towers, if any) would succeed in bringing the Towers down. In case the above did not fully succeed, then perhaps the collapse of a third skyscraper might provide the desired melodrama.
In addition, if the planners also wanted to destroy one or more specific offices in WTC 7 via fire, the planners would not have known in advance whether fire fighters would succeed in putting out the fires in WTC 7. To deal with that uncertainty, demolishing the entire building might have been a backup means of destroying whatever offices the planners wanted to destroy.
Err… if WTC 1 and 2 didn’t collapse, then I presume there wouldn’t have been any reason for WTC7 to collapse. Or am I missing something?
Comment by westprog99 — February 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
The end of conspiracy theory is near
Comment by ref1 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
westprog99 wrote:
Err… if WTC 1 and 2 didn’t collapse, then I presume there wouldn’t have been any reason for WTC7 to collapse. Or am I missing something?
I’m assuming here that the planners would have had some sort of backup excuse for the collapse of WTC 7 – perhaps even bombs (or incendiaries) planted by a “terrorist.” But the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 provided a much better excuse, so they went with that one.
Disclaimer: This entire discussion is hypothetical, since I currently don’t claim to know what happened to the WTC buildings. (However, even if I decide that the demolition theories are entirely unfounded, there are plenty of other anomalies pertaining to 9/11, which I would then turn more of my attention to, and on which I think the 9/11 Truth movement has a much stronger case, or, at the very least, can easily build one.)
New York City activist 
“Can you tell me one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?”
Comment by ref1 — February 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
One thing that stands out is the 4 verified WAR GAMES on 9/11 facilitating the ensuing documented confusion in terms of (not) responding adequately.
Comment by realitydesign — March 7, 2008 @ 3:26 pm |
(This comment is an edited pingback.)
The post linked below is a reply to the above comment by “realitydesign.”
Any further comments on the issues of air defense and war games should be posted underneath the post linked below, rather than here on this page.
On the other hand, any comments on the topic of the above post (how the planting of incendiaries, explosive, etc. in the WTC buildings could have been hidden) should be posted here on this page.
Pingback by Air defense failures, war games, etc. « New York City activist — March 8, 2008 @ 12:10 am |