Countdown to 9/11 … Conspiracy Theories
OK, countdown to the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Details, details. I know about a million columns and blog posts are going to be written as the tenth anniversary of the most overblown and hyped event in human history approaches, so it’s a topic that’s on my mind. And I’m already disgusted by some of the jingoistic tripe being bandied about, not to mention the lies, so I’m going to throw my two cents in. Here then is part one of a series of columns I plan to write as the great day approaches. Conspiracy theories, what really brought down the twin towers?
Gravity. See, that was easy. There is no other way for a building that size and weight to fall, it has to fall into its’ own footprint. It could only fall over sideways if there was some huge force pushing it sideways. So the fact that the buildings collapsed into their own footprints is meaningless, not proof that they were felled by deliberately laid explosives. But, but … didn’t people report hearing explosions before and during the collapses? Yes, they likely did. Take a concrete and steel column, put so much weight on top of it that it can no longer support the weight, what happens? It explodes. Any other questions?
Actually, I have a few questions. 9/11 demolition theory conspiracists generally avoid questions, but it’s my blog, and I’ll ask if I want to. How, exactly, does one recruit people into this kind of plot? I don’t doubt that there are people in power capable of murdering thousands of Americans for their own political ends, but getting henchmen to carry out acts like this historically requires very extreme settings like wars and massive internal unrest. IE Dick Cheney didn’t secretly deploy tons of explosives in his spare time, a large team of specialists would be required. I find it hard to imagine circumstances where such people would agree to participate in the plot, and even less imagine how all of these people would keep quiet afterwards.
Which leads to another absurd aspect of the controlled demolition theory. The insane complexity of the plot. Let’s review, we start with a plot that involves hijacking four airliners and flying them into buildings … and preventing any of America’s defence and intelligence agencies from interfering! Think about that, even at this point we are talking a vast conspiracy involving controlling influence in dozens of agencies including things like the Air Force. There’s all sorts of ways this could go wrong already. And then add another layer to this mess, the secret deployment of explosives in two of the world’s largest buildings. Um, even in planned demolitions things sometimes don’t work, and there’s all sorts of ways a secret like this could be discovered either before or after. In other words, this plot may work in a Hollywood movie, in real life, no one is daft enough to try something this complicated, and the likelihood of them pulling it all off is basically zero. I challenge anyone to find any successful conspiracy in history even remotely approaching the controlled demolition 9/11 theory in complexity.
And speaking of controlled demolitions, they always start at the bottom, not the top. And the twin towers were unique buildings in their construction details as well. Again, just more layers of complexity to a plot already insanely complex: The demolition of a type of building that had never been demolished before using a method of demolition that had never been used before, all based on the idea that the hijacked airliners would hit when and where required. What if one of the planes missed? Or hit the wrong place and wiped out key demolitions?
Like I said, twin tower demolition conspiracy theorists have far more unanswered questions than they propose. I think they are wrong, and I especially think they are, well, delusional when they try to claim that their case is proven. I won’t try to argue that their case is impossible, just that there are far less complicated and more satisfying explanations for the events of 9/11. That however is a topic for tomorrow’s blog.
(The above is a contemporary image of the conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. It is public domain under US copyright law. Most may have heard of Guy Fawkes, the conspirator caught guarding the explosives under the parliament building, where the plotters planned to blow up the King and the House of Lords. It’s one of the closest analogies to the 9/11 twin towers demolition conspiracy theory I can find, it involved a vastly simpler plan with far fewer plotters … and it was a complete failure.)
Doug's Darkworld 
Building 7 bears all of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. I say this as a licensed professional civil engineer. It is my professional opinion that building 7 collapsed in a way that defies logic.. it dropped like a rock in on itself.. there was no progression to the collapse as you would expect.
It reminds me of the trick of pulling a table cloth off of the table and leaving the dinner ware and glasses standing PERFECTLY. As you know this takes a lot of skill.
Collapses in buildings PROGRESS. This building was demolished in my professional opinion. As a licensed engineer I can give an OPINION in a court of law. A layman may NOT give a professional opinion in a court of law. In other words, I can act as an expert witness, and in my opinion the building 7 collapse was man-made. Therefore the existence of a conspiracy at “some level” (insurance fraud, whatever…) is evident in my professional opinion. The building 7 could NOT collapse that way on its own.
John Galt
September 8, 2011 at 7:44 am
If one adds WTC7 to the proposed plot, it adds another layer of complexity to what is already the most convoluted plot in history … for no good purpose. Why demolish a building that no one has ever heard of and add that much more chance of failure and exposure? —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 8:28 am
WTC7 has to be accounted for “proposed plot” or not.
And again the fact is that none of America’s defense and intelligence agencies were able to interfere competently.
Of course, it was well-known that NORAD’s air-defenses had been stripped to, I believe 3 flights [6 aircraft] to protect the whole east coast, because of scheduled annual war games in Alaska and that extra steps had been instituted in scrambling those remaining flights.
Expertise would surely be needed to place explosives but those experts would not be numerous, the grunts who did the actual placement would be numerous but would not need to know what they were doing, Maintenance work is ongoing in all major installations, often done by workers whose first language is not English.
Remember the Greenbriar Resort cellarage, that was kept under wraps for decades.
I’m not an engineer or demolitions expert but I do not believe that another single case can be shown were three buildings, one of which had only experienced sporadic fires, collapsed in the manner of the WTC.
There is a strong will among the civil population to believe the authorities but sometimes it can be “tried too high.”
Dorothy Kahn
September 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm
What do you think of building 7’s design? It was about as far removed from a typical skyscraper as one can get. The first 5-7 floors were inhabited by a ConEd substation. Certainly a quirky piece of engineering that must have played a substantial role in it’s collapse.
Stephen Thornhill
September 9, 2011 at 7:56 am
Are you joking Doug?
Why did the floors below the impact site of the plane offer near zero resistance to the 10 second collapse? Even if the jet fuel weakened the steel in the entire building enough for the building to collapse, it wouldn’t vaporize it or burn evenly, it would fall to one side or the other.
READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT IT.
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
“Take a concrete and steel column, put so much weight on top of it that it can no longer support the weight, what happens? It explodes. Any other questions?”
Yeah who put more weight on the towers, did they get heavier? Which plane hit building 7 again? Did you get paid to write this, lol?
Pyrodin
September 8, 2011 at 8:21 am
No, I’m not joking. Which leads to another observation, ten years on and how much actual evidence have 9/11 demolition conspiracy theorists come up with? None. No documents, no collaborators, no witnesses, nothing. Just endless analysis of old videotapes and such with cherry picked observations that the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields dispute. This isn’t evidence of a plot, it’s evidence of people obsessed with proving their theory. And again, the questions no conspiracy theorist wants to answer: How, exactly, does one recruit hundreds of people into a plot to murder thousands of Americans? And every single person approached joined the plot and has kept perfect secrecy since then? —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am
Hard to gather evidence when there’s no INVESTIGATION!!
No hard evidence, but really how hard would it be for a powerful gov. agency to keep tabs?
Why won’t they release the vids from the pentagon?
Perfect secrecy? Yeah, nobody suspects except millions of internet users….
I would say there are a few three letter organizations that have hundreds of people willing to keep secrets Doug, I’d say they have a pretty good lead over most. I don’t know how they keep it from getting out, but obviously they can’t do it that well given all the “conspiracy” crap.
What if, the folks “in the know” are told there is a very good reason it had to be demolished, like save the world kinda excuse?
I believe NIST is lying. Why? I don’t know. How they get away with it? I don’t know. Seems obvious to me from the physics of the collapse that it was controlled…..I don’t see how you can NOT see it as such, especially considering building 7.
Pyrodin
September 8, 2011 at 9:57 am
That was a slick piece – not the usual spook shows. There are two things I’ve never understood, first is why people are so amazed that 1 & 2 didn’t fall over, instead going into their own ‘footprint?’ They’re weren’t solid like trees. Skyscrapers are virtually empty inside. Second, is it just a coincidence that 1 & 2 started collapsing precisely where the planes hit? The way the #2 building started falling is the interesting case – given the way the plane hit the corner at an odd angle. Why was the conspiratorial crew needed in the first place? Wouldn’t a couple of airliners crashing into some signature buildings be dramatic enough for America? Question 2B: presumably, the crews must have loaded those floors with explosives. Wouldn’t flying planes into those floors ruin weeks, if not months, of painstaking, tedious preparation?
Stephen Thornhill
September 9, 2011 at 8:19 am
Just wanted to clarify a bit. I understand that there are experts who have issues with some aspects of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7. However, for every expert with issues, there are dozens if not hundreds of equally qualified experts who have no problem with the theory that the buildings collapsed from the result of the impacts and subsequent fires. One can add yet another layer of complexity by claiming that somehow the entire field of architecture and engineering is in on the plot, but a theory that stays valid by adding a layer of complexity every time a new objection is made … isn’t a very robust theory. So I respect the conspiracy theorists, at least until we get to the robot plane and missile nonsense, but remain unconvinced until actual evidence of a plot is uncovered and/or my questions have satisfactory answers. —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 9:41 am
As I’ve said earlier, WTC7 is proof that the collapses were natural, if anything, since there’s no conceivable reason why plotters would blow up a third building no one had ever heard of before. As columns began to fail, more weight was transferred to nearby columns, I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear in the context. And millions of people believe the Earth is 7,000 years old, but the vast majority of experts in the field see nothing mysterious in the collapses that requires explosives or thermite to explain. In any event tomorrow I will be writing about what I did think happen, which does indeed include a government conspiracy. —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm
WTF! How is it proof? Lol, no plane hit the building, why did it collapse into its own footprint if not controlled demolition, no jet fuel to weaken it, just fires?
No conceivable reason? I think the CIA ran the show from WTC 7 and torched their 9-11 workshop. The resulting fires got out of hand so they had to “pull it” 7 hours later…..
Here’s the offices in WTC 7-
Salomon Smith Barney
IRS Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
C.I.A.
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
First State Management Group, Inc
Federal Home Loan Bank
NAIC Securities
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayor’s Office of Emergency Mgmt
Also, you’d think there would be several lawsuits against demolition companies for fraud, all you have to do is start a fire and the building will fall into its footprint, simple, who needs explosives and careful planning, They been cheating folks for years I guess. Ridiculous…..And how many of those experts are willing to risk their career anyway on a social stigma, probably NOT the “vast majority”…..
Pyrodin
September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Because buildings that size can’t collapse any other way? Even if part of it started tipping, as did the top of one of the two towers, the increased weight on the fulcrum of the tip would cause instant column failure and down it goes. As for the “plot headquarters in WTC7,” as I have stated before … adding another layer of complexity to explain away an objection to the original hypothesis doesn’t strengthen a case, it weakens it. And I’ve seen aerial pictures of ground zero after the collapse, hardly an advertisement for demolition using uncontrolled fires. As for dismissing the objections of experts who disagree with the theory, well, that’s convenient. I don’t know what really happened on 9/11, and considering the complexity and uniqueness of the events that day, I think it’s safe to say that there will always be unanswered questions. I’ve more to say, but that’s on tomorrow’s blog. Thanks for commenting. —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“Pull it” is the famous Larry Silverstein quote from that afternoon from him to the Fire Chief. Obviously, he meant that they should pull out the remaining firefighters in the building. He wasn’t saying, “Hey Mr. Chief, could you please demolish my 50 story skyscraper – seeings how you’re already down here – no big deal – I know you’re in shock and all – what with the dozens of dead brothers you have there across the street in that giant pile of twisted structural steel and melted office furniture … But if you get a few spare minutes …”
Stephen Thornhill
September 9, 2011 at 8:38 am
I don’t think anyone, especially in the USA will ever forget 9/11. There were thousands of innocent lives lost, taken way to early. But something else should be said about what is being taken from Americans. Since post 9/11 your government has spent billions on homeland security. Do you feel safer? Do you feel your government represents you? If there was a conspiracy for 9/11, then it was for change in your country. Think of who benefits from increased spending with homeland security? Who had the most to loose? Would your goverment sacrifice a few to protect the masses? And I do not agree that any of the destruction was controlled demolition. But I think higher government officals knew, and for some reason they did not stop the terrorism, After 9/11 everything changed, what is next to come?
Jennifer Goodyear
September 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm
No worries, I will be writing extensively about other aspects of 9/11 in the coming days. I’m just starting at the beginning. Thanks. —Doug
unitedcats
September 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Honestly, I don’t know what really happened on 9/11 either…sad no matter what.
Pyrodin
September 8, 2011 at 8:30 pm