Posted on 02/13/2005 3:59:00 PM PST by OK
"...Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
If this had happened, the loss of life would have been closer to 30,000, instead of 3,000, as the collapse would have been immediate, allowing no evacuation time, and the method of collapse would have killed probably thousands in surrounding structures. This would have happened with Clinton in the White House. To me, it's still very scary to think about.
There was a tape of bin Laden that was captured in Afghanistan and shown on TV. He was surprised that the WTC towers collapsed as it wasn't expected.
Bump to read article later.
Ping
I've read that, too. The irony of that plan is that it never would have worked even if everything "worked perfectly." The nature of physics and the law of gravity are such that it's impossible to topple a building sideways like that.
If you read that Popular Mechanics article, you'll see that one of the reasons people suspected an "internal explosion" of some sort is that the buildings fell in a manner that was similar to a building demolition. They are absolutely correct about that, because that's how buildings fall no matter how they are demolished. A building isn't one homogenous structure like a 2x4 -- it's a lattice of structural elements held together by joints that couldn't possibly retain their shape as the building fell down.
The strongest force (by far) in any building collapse is the downward force of gravity. The force required to move even a single I-beam (let alone concrete slabs, columns, and beams) 100 feet in a horizontal direction is enormous. In the case of the WTC collapse, the only solid things that traveled any appreciable distance from the site were those that were already moving horizontally at a great speed -- pieces of the aircraft themselves.
I'm no engineer, but the collapse was a classic pancake collapse, and assuming normal reactions, occured about like you would expect. Some people will believe anything. I saw the second plane hit the tower live, and there are people trying to tell me that it wasn't enough to do the damage it did. The planes hit the towers, and the collapse took place starting at the point of impact.
As to whether the original plot would have worked, the people who did our seminar were convinced that it would, and they were affiliated with the Feds, etc. I couldn't argue the merits either way.
I hadn't seen it either. It's in the source article, which is very good by-the-way.
Popular Mechanics is a CIA "front" operation.
Everyone knows that.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I miss Mike.
He was like our own pet psychopath.
Include those quotes in the search and you get 578 results. Big difference between a particular phrase vs. four fairly common words showing up anywhere on a page.
Looks like a good job by PM. I hope they keep that posted permanently.
jw
Their basic premise is that the Bildeburgers did it as part of their tactics (along with the Bush family) to retain their control of the US government.
And the building was actually brought down with demolition explosives, ( like the OKC building they say ) and that the airplanes were basically a photo event.
They also had some theory to refute the Pentagon event as well. Talked about Family and God also ....I walked out about half way thru the 2 hour video showing as did many others.
It's a money making scheme with many of those tinfoil sites I think.
************************************************
No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
 |
Yeah, right! The next thing you know, they'll tell us that Paul is not really dead and that wasn't "Paul" at the SuperBowl, but Paul . . . Leave my tin foil be! |
LOL, I hope you didn't pay admission!
No, but I did have a permission pass, got it from my neighbor gal (who gave me the brochure before and asked me to go ).
>>I've always suspected that his knowledge of structural design was a factor in selecting the WTC as a target both in 1993 and in 2001.<<
No way to know for sure (since I think he's dead), but I seriously doubt this for a couple of reasons. One, the WTC buildings were picked for their location, height, and "status," and there's no indication that there were any other targets. Two, when they tried to take them out in 1993, they thought one building would topple the other one, which was impossible, or at least a one in a billion shot -- and a civil engineer would have known that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.