9/11 Reports 2

206 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

I have read a few theories on this but the controlled demolition ones persist.

One of the problems is that some of the other theories also imply issues some people would not want to see the light of day. The article includes the issue of the role of fire retardent materials plays. The BBC did a film about this showing footage from the World Trade structures showing that the fire retardent material was insufficient even missing in places and reports had been written about this.

With high heats, and a lack of protection, steel conducts heat faster than the other building materials so the points of failure could be below the rest of the collapse. As well the structure will give before the rest of the cladding so puffs of material coming out below the collapse is not as strange is one might think.

In any case I am not buying the conspiracy theory as expressed but I do think the buildings had defects in maintenance -- maybe even construction --  which might explain why there is a preference to let the more outlandish conspiracy theories persist. If you have theories that persist that are outlandish there is less chance that the truth will be discovered and less credibility to the idea of something being hidden.

So there is a possibility of a coverup that is less wild than the one being promoted but still with an incentive to hide it and missdirect.

Rev Pesky

I'm afraid my life is a bit too short to read this. Did they explain how it was that the collapse of the WTC towers started on the floors where the airplanes hit?

Were they able to tie in the anthrax poisonings?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I did read the article, and commented on it in another thread. In short, I think it raises interesting questions in a non-conspiratorial way.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think it raises interesting questions in a non-conspiratorial way.

It's interesting enough, I suppose, and it's true that it's refreshingly non-conspiratorial.  But it's not as though the authors are just neutral, curious scientists.

I think it's an admittedly clever, two-part strategy.  First, break out and focus on just the "science" part.  Then, if you can convince people that it could only have been a controlled demolition, the k00Kiness can resume in earnest, and the blame can be placed on Rummy, the Mossad, and the Bilderberg group as before.

NorthReport

Let's forever this nonsense about the physical collapse of the WTC buildings

Americans it appears think the big issue about 9/11 is that the 2 agencies mandated with the task to protect Americans, the CIA and the FBI were not working together, and that CIA warnings to the White House, to S Rice and G Bush about al Queda were ignored, not because they knew ahead of time about the attacks, but because they wee getting warnings every day, something like the warnings prior to Pearl Harbour, and that the CIA knew that there were 2 terrorists who eventually flew on those planes and the CIA knew they were in the USA but did not inform the FBI who would have rounded them up, because of communication breakdown between the 2 agencies, and also it was the CIA who told Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

- from the doc

Spymasters-the CIA in the Crosshairs

Pages