posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:05 PM
I've remained mostly an observer on the edges of the debate about the WTC, in part because, having been a resident in the city at the time, and
having deep personal involvement in the aftermath, I've found it difficult to be sufficiently objective in forming an opinion. I'm also a highly
skeptical person by nature -- which to me means questioning both sides with equal rigor, and there's frankly too much math I can't follow well for
me to be able to truly assess the deeper arguments from either side. However, based on the evidence I have been able to evaluate to my satisfaction, I
have come to believe that the probability of LIHOP is strong, and to suspect even more is possible.
Because I don't go very far into the world of WTC discussion, it's possible this has come up before and I haven't seen it. However, I don't recall
anyone mentioning it in the many pages of threads on the subject I've read here, and a search turned up no references that I could find.
In 1835, a fire broke out in lower Manhattan which resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the Financial District. According to wiki -- and
I am trying to find better sources and more corroboration, but it seems to be a matter of plain record:
Attempts to blow up buildings in its path (a technique later regarded as counterproductive) were thwarted by a lack of gunpowder in Manhattan.
Firefighters coming to help from Philadelphia said they could see signs of the fire there.
About 2 a.m. Marines returned with gunpowder from the Brooklyn Navy Yard and blew up buildings in the fire's path...
So we have, a bit more than a hundred years previously, a massive disaster in the same part of Manhattan where deliberate demolition was employed. To
me, it seems like a possible answer to those who question whether explosives could have been pre-implanted within the towers -- without myself feeling
like I know enough to take a position on that, I'm curious what people make of this historic event and how it may or may not relate to the events of
September 11, 2001.
Also notable about the Great Fire of 1835:
Insurance was not forthcoming because several insurance company headquarters burned, bankrupting those companies.
Since the fire occurred in the middle of an economic boom caused by the recent opening of the Erie Canal, the destroyed wooden buildings were quickly
replaced by larger stone and brick ones that were less prone to widespread major fires. The fire also prompted construction of a new municipal water
supply, now known as the Old Croton Aqueduct, and a reform and expansion of the fire service.
A suspicious mind might find the presence of a plan which (erroneously) presumed an ability to control the fire, combined with the usefulness of the
fire for 'upgrading' the city in one horrific swipe suggestive of the possibility that the fire was set intentionally. And such a mind might make
note that despite the 'counterproductive' remark, the idea of being prepared for sudden yet controlled demolition is not only plausible, but already
part of the city's history...and that humans have a tendency to repeat failed behaviors with adapted methods, much more often than they truly abandon
bad ideas and wholly replace them.