Someone close to me pressed a copy of “Loose Change” into my hands years ago…


A friend who trusts my judgement asked me just the other day about “whether the government blew up those buildings.” After some thought, I finally came up with this simple refutation:

The key premise of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that the Bush administration staged the events to justify a war with Iraq. If that’s true, why didn’t they clearly implicate Iraq at the time? You know, like, why not use Iraqi terrorists (instead of Saudis) or at least claim that the terrorists were Iraqis? (Instead, they played rhetorical games, to get Americans to associate Iraq with the attacks.)

Tell me what the official story is so I can not believe it...

quite confused about geography, and couldn't tell the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, because remember they went into Afghanistan almost immediately after 9/11. Iraq came more than a year later.

You may recall that Clinton launched cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-20/us/9808_20_us.strikes.01_1_sudanese-television-bin-mullah-abdullah?_s=PM:US

I'm not a chemist.
I'm not a structural engineer.
I'm not an architect.

But I can consult them. Ask questions, and evaluate data. Tens of Thousands of informed opinions are available.

Having watched Zeitgeist (tm) I feel it raised some legitimate questions. Physically speaking. Not talking about who did it, or why. Just purely the physical properties of the structures and the events.

When WTC towers fell they collapsed internally, and fell straight down into their own footprint. Neither one toppled. Any 3 of the internal columns could support the building. Jet fuel burns at a specific temperature. Objects in free fall travel at a specified rate. WTC7 wasn't hit. Many other scientifically based questions. No politics. No chicken little antics. No New World Order stuff.

When issues of forces behind events are examined, some (to me) alarming trends emerge. But I am just asking about the science. Is there a resource you can point me towards, that deals with these things? Or better yet, any of you who can explain this stuff, please do so.

I'd like to think I'm not a total dumbass. And not an alarmist either. I'm also not an anarchist, trying to build a case against a criminal government. JUST the science.

Let the flames begin!

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Like this you mean?


Here’s the footprint they fell straight down into.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm


May I suggest: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/full-episodes/remembering-911-1/ngc-911-science-and-conspiracy/

All kinds of experts refute the CT's, including real structural engineers, chemists, etc.

I think this was my favorite part - a demolition contractor rigged up a test that exactly duplicated the theory about "thermite charges wrapped around support columns in the basement." When he set off the blast, those columns were barely marked - let alone brought down.

I gave the NG video to a friend of mine not long ago. His (adult) daughter was hopping on the 9/11 CT bandwagon and watching it seemed to answer her questions.

I briefly described the video to my friend (who had not seen it)

I said, “They demonstrate what it takes to implode a building, and the ‘truthers’ just respond, ‘Well, that’s not a valid demonstration. We’re talking about advanced technology here, technology that professionals have never even heard of.’”

OK! So, now the conspiracy includes a band of very fast working covert demolition experts who employ exotic technology that professionals don’t know about.



Then, I realized, all of this stuff is really peripheral to the central argument.

If, the whole point of this very complex conspiracy was to justify a war in Iraq, why didn’t they implicate the Iraqis somehow?


FWIW: One of my “favorite” details from Loose Change was when we are told about when a “B-52” crashed into the Empire State Building, but the Empire State Building didn’t fall down. Close! but not quite. It wasn’t a “B-52” it was a “B-25…” (a much smaller and lighter plane than a B-52, and also much smaller, lighter and slower than the planes which flew full throttle into the World Trade Towers.)


Today, I learned, they supposedly left things like that in there, on purpose, just to encourage people to research it themselves…

http://www.alternet.org/story/40476/?page=4

I appreciate the resources.

You know how people go on about the collapse of WTC 7?

When you look at that aerial view, and see the damage to the surrounding buildings the collapse of WTC 7 comes as no surprise at all. (Follow the link <http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm > and check out the cropped close up shot. Check out all of the debris on the roofs and the holes in the buildings left standing.)

You'll get all sorts of helpful information there.

It may be helpful for you to "unbundle" your bag and stick to a specific question at a time.