Logic of 9/11 - part one

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

Agreed. The towers HAD to come down, not only because of the additional loss of life and the symbolism (iconic structures falling) but also because of the asbestos liability.

The 600 million dollar number is thrown around quite a bit based on the ruling by Judge Bissell but there would have been added costs due to claims of asbestos exposure which could have run into the billions.

Which is why the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. It could not be left to chance.

reply to post by gladtobehere

but also because of the asbestos liability

I decided not to even go there...there were more reasons to take down the towers than Al-Qaeda had to attack America. But wanted to look at this from and official narrative perspective.

There is changing of the tides...now I see that ever OS'ers are now realizing...that towers shouldn't have fallen down...not without any help. But they are still scared to look for the guilty.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Some people are far happier believing the OS, never questioning anything written in the NIST report simply because to do so would rip open the illusion we have been sold.

We are conditioned from the moment we are born. This conditioning starts with our parents and continues throughout life through the education system and main stream media.

Some people claim that it is unpatriotic to think for yourself, to even consider that there is a far darker conspiracy behind the events of 9/11.

Was it luck or judgement the towers collapsed? Not only are a band of inexperienced and amateur Arabs responsible for hi-jacking 4 planes, they are responsible for smashing the planes into the towers with such accuracy, they caused their collapse.

Someone out there had worked out the physics in order to create such a disaster, just who, that is the question?

but also because of the asbestos liability

Again, you have people twisting facts to suit a theory. The asbestos angle is ridiculous because the 600million figure covered all the liability of the entire city. This included all 3 city airports numerous city structures owned by the city government. The figure had nothing to do with liability as the fight was between the city and the insurance company as to the final cost. The Towers, that are 90% air, was the least expensive option for the city as the airports were packed with asbestos from the late 50's.

This is a classic example why the truther movement died because of obvious distortions, twisted facts and telling downright lies. Another example of this is statements that the towers were losing money and not occupied fully. This has no basis in fact whatsoever as 80% occupancy rate is about normal and saying some conspiracy to bring them down because they were losing money is absurd.

As far as the towers falling it is believed that excluding the operatives only about 15-20 other people in the world knew the attack was coming. This is a hard figure to pin down because so many were killed in the American retaliation. Although the exact date is unknown OBL, KSM and Abu Hafs met in Kandahar in the spring of 1999 to discuss targets and tactics. Bil Laden told KSM that America could be brought down by hitting weak spots and creating a panic with the invasion of surprise operatives crashing planes into the downtown streets of Manhattan.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Was it luck or judgement the towers collapsed? Not only are a band of inexperienced and amateur Arabs responsible for hi-jacking 4 planes, they are responsible for smashing the planes into the towers with such accuracy, they caused their collapse.

Someone out there had worked out the physics in order to create such a disaster, just who, that is the question?

That is the meat of it....that my mind can not except...that 3 towers went down...in almost identical fashion...and nobody planned it ?????

Come on...just by slamming planes in to them...?? perfect collapses ?? If only one tower come down...I could see it...but 3...in the same fashion not to forget....into it's own footprint...COME ON !!!!!!! There is no way in hell that happening without some careful planning.

I just can't believe buildings can be completely crushed to the ground. Almost leveled. One might question the whole control demolition teams that do months of planning for something like this. What a bunch of pussies.

The OS'ers in this thread are trying to convince me that there was no planning on anything. Apparently these guys just waltzed into the US and started taking planes and crashing them randomly. And...overall, they got extremely lucky with everything they tried.

reply to post by spooky24

Bil Laden told KSM that America could be brought down by hitting weak spots and creating a panic with the invasion of surprise operatives crashing planes into the downtown streets of Manhattan.

but I thought you said...

The Sheik had only insisted on the surprise and the shock that such an infiltration would cause and crashing the planes anywhere would suffice. To hit the targets-a decision left totally up to Atta-it would need an incredible amount of luck which seemed to follow the plot like the devil and cover up numerous mistakes by the operators.

So OBL did instruct the location to the would be hijackers after all (according to your last post)...perhaps you should correct the previous post than. But why downtown Manhattan...when according to you

crashing the planes anywhere would suffice

Seems like you're quoting multiple sources that are in conflict with one another...



edit:

The asbestos angle is ridiculous because the 600million figure covered all the liability of the entire city

It's not about liability...it's about the cost needed to replace the asbestos in both towers...read up on it.

As to exactly OBL's wording we only have KSM to reconstruct the events. After his 3 years tour of various eastern European CIA prisons/torture centers his accounts conflict at various spots. OBL was impatient for the attacks to proceed and was constantly calling(by agents of AQ) for the date of the attacks. On July 11th KSM said OBL informed him to proceed with the plan even if it just meant crashing the planes into the streets. KSM declined by informing Bin Laden that Atta would decide when the attacks take place-and he was no where near ready as the problems of getting additional operatives through customs must be solved then and only then could he began to decide on a day for the attacks.

I'm not going to waste my time reading tall tales at a truther sites when the truth has been out for more than a decade. The city was fighting with the cites insurance holder on what percentage they would pay for asbestos removal at JFK and LaGuardia. These were the sites that had the most asbestos to be removed. The towers built in the mid seventy's had far less to remove. Any insinuation that the asbestos had anything to do with the plot is just simple lack of knowledge.

It is now well established from many witnesses that there were multiple explosions at the WTC area before any of the towers were hit. Planes were simply a diversion of attention from the real attack.

Statements like this is what strangled then eventually killed the truther movement. The cherry picking of witnesses and twisting their comments was so obvious that most people had had it with the movement. The only evidence they had was contrived and that is still all they have.

go and look for all the gold that was there only a fraction was recovered not to mention diamonds etc and share certificates and the trading options leading up to and beyond that day .

and look into what players own stocks in companys all roads lead to rome

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

huh...just glanced over your links...and although it might seem you have proven your case...those links actually are more leaning towards the fact that Bin Laden wasn't even aware of the attacks until he heard about it over dinner. Which is also what he claimed in this confirmed interview.

As I said, I'm not interested in a discussion of this. The evidence you have is threadbare and dilatory in comparison to the volume of material that connects Bin Laden to 9/11.

From your link:

The CIA has detainees that are surprised at the towers collapse on 9/11.

Infact the world was surprised that the towers fell, not just Al Qaeda,

So the entire world was surprised, yet they fell anyway...

Doesn't that sort of raise some red flags ??

Since you are obviously on the side of the official story...yet you believe they did not plan for the towers to go down...but three fell non the less...and the whole world was obviously surprised. Doesn't that kinda points to them most probably being demolished on purpose ? Or you believe that despite all the experts, the hijackers, the CIA, the whole world...towers decided to fall anyway....to hell with physics.

I posted in this thread to disabuse you of your notion that the conspirators' intended to demolish the towers. You have responded by

- posting disinformation relating to Bin Laden's involvement (despite saying you wouldn't)
- changing the subject

and, most mystifyingly of all

- claiming that even if the reverse of your contention is true, this is still evidence of suspicious activity. Do you not see that if your reaction to facts that are 100% opposed to each other is to claim that they both support your argument, then you are likely to have trouble convincing people. Put simply, if your attitude to the facts is this fickle then your conclusions probably should be fluid too.

If you read my opening post...you will notice that I covered such a possibility...that hijackers never meant to take down the towers...

Your post is a continuous stream of assertions that they must have meant to demolish the towers.

but you are than openly admitting in fact...that somebody else obviously did...since nobody involved expected it. NIST even introduced a new category for this event specifically. A cascading structural collapse induced by fires...(even though they admit something like this has never happened before).

You have now jumped to Building 7. You should attempt to remain on topic.

And it goes without saying that I do not think that the fact that people were surprised that the towers fell in the way they did is evidence of an 'inside job'.

As I said, I'm not interested in a discussion of this. The evidence you have is threadbare and dilatory in comparison to the volume of material that connects Bin Laden to 9/11.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


The evidence you do not wish to discuss, yet you provided the link of OBL's involvement, is scarce at best....and nowhere to be seen publicly. Why wasn't OBL connected officially to 9/11 according to FBI ? Because there was no evidence of his involvement.

- claiming that even if the reverse of your contention is true, this is still evidence of suspicious activity.

Isn't it beautiful...the event is so obviously a sham on the US public, that any direction you go...whether it was a plan or not to take down the towers...it still points to deceit.

Your post is a continuous stream of assertions that they must have meant to demolish the towers.

Maybe you missed that part...but nowhere in my thread did I claim to know for certain. I was making many assumptions (you can see that by spotting the words "Let's assume")...

Since your government was so open and forthcoming in the investigation of 9/11...all we are left is...assumptions and speculations.

You have now jumped to Building 7

Building 7 is a part of the official narrative...and is absolutely within the thread subject.

And it goes without saying that I do not think that the fact that people were surprised

If you and I are surprised...it means nothing...but when thousands of structural engineers are surprised...that means something.

reply to post by spooky24

Statements like this is what strangled then eventually killed the truther movement. The cherry picking of witnesses and twisting their comments was so obvious that most people had had it with the movement. The only evidence they had was contrived and that is still all they have.

I don't know what are you talking about...there is ample video evidence...by many whitnesses, and are not taken out of context...people heard explosions before the planes hit, during and after the fires subsided.

If you insist...I'm even willing to find some complilation of video testimony from the people that got out of the towers before collapsing. Numerous claims of explosions...some precisely stating it was before the first plane hit.

You can however, choose to ignore that fact...

MarioOnTheFly


The evidence you do not wish to discuss, yet you provided the link of OBL's involvement, is scarce at best....and nowhere to be seen publicly. Why wasn't OBL connected officially to 9/11 according to FBI ? Because there was no evidence of his involvement.

I provided two links to show you that the conspirators were surprised that the towers collapsed, and that they had not planned this as you claimed.

If you really think there is "no evidence" of Bin Laden's involvement with 9/11 - a stance I was certain you would immediately gravitate to despite pretending you wouldn't - then you have (to put it politely) scant knowledge of the subject.

Isn't it beautiful...the event is so obviously a sham on the US public, that any direction you go...whether it was a plan or not to take down the towers...it still points to deceit.

Only if you have made your mind up that it was a "sham" in the first place. Then you find "evidence" everywhere for that conclusion.

Note that it is logically impossible for diametrically opposing facts to be evidence of the same conclusion. It's indicative of your desperate need to believe in a conspiracy theory that you are able to take the two positions as such.

Maybe you missed that part...but nowhere in my thread did I claim to know for certain. I was making many assumptions (you can see that by spotting the words "Let's assume")...

You didn't use the phrase "Let's assume". You said "We have to assume". It's rather different, especially when you also write that

"the main purpose of the attacks... was to take down the towers"

"So...[the hijackers'] plan is to take down the towers. We have to assume that it was the main plan of the entire event. It had to be."

Really, if you're not even sure what you've written then you can't expect others to follow your argument.

Since your government was so open and forthcoming in the investigation of 9/11...all we are left is...assumptions and speculations.

My government hasn't investigated 9/11.

Building 7 is a part of the official narrative...and is absolutely within the thread subject.

Your OP discusses the hijackers intentions with regard to the towers - incorrectly, but that's what it concerns. Building 7 has nothing to do with this and your mixing of the two is either poor argumentation or an attempt to change the subject again.

If you and I are surprised...it means nothing...but when thousands of structural engineers are surprised...that means something.

I suppose it might do. If there were thousands of them "surprised".

But even if there were I wouldn't take it as evidence of an 'inside job'. Occurrences of large passenger planes hitting specific types of buildings are so rare - in fact arguably unknown - that it's not that strange that even structural engineers are unfamiliar with how the building might behave. Any anyway, the vast, vast majority of them don't think it odd in the least.

I don't know what are you talking about...there is ample video evidence...by many whitnesses, and are not taken out of context...people heard explosions before the planes hit, during and after the fires subsided. If you insist...I'm even willing to find some complilation of video testimony from the people that got out of the towers before collapsing. Numerous claims of explosions...some precisely stating it was before the first plane hit. You can however, choose to ignore that fact.

In the 2 volume set of the 9/11 encyclopedia I have every single interview conducted by the FBI, the port authority and the NYPD. 1183 interviews and not a single one expressively describes explosions being anything other their own narrative of what they saw and heard.

For example: Fireman 613 testified that after arriving at the north tower he saw the glass blown outward in the street and mezzanine level. He also testified to the strong smell of jet fuel and an explosion like a bomb had forced the glass out in the street. He was describing the jet fuel that had blown down the elevator shafts had exploded and burned the entire lobby level.

Truther spin:

Fireman 613 saw bombs and explosions.

In all the interviews-every single one-no one testified to hearing explosions before 8:46 am. No one.

You are a perfect example of why the truther movement died because you have no choice other than to fabricate evidence.

Individuals that I know, who have solid research credentials, have problems with the official events however they stress that manipulating witnesses statements is not evidence. Any witness statement must be quoted word for word with no added or ignored statements.

reply to post by spooky24

You are a perfect example of why the truther movement died because you have no choice other than to fabricate evidence.

Thanks. In the mean time.... you can perhaps check out this video...it's not a compilation...but it will do.

In the 2 volume set of the 9/11 encyclopedia I have every single interview conducted by the FBI

I guess you think that if there were controversial testimony...that FBI would have listed them in their encyclopedia. Sure.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

But even if there were I wouldn't take it as evidence of an 'inside job'

Agreed. But it's a strong hint that not all is clear and right. In my opening thread, I did not discuss a potential inside job. In fact, my starting position was that of a OS'er...believing that the fall was induced by fires.


Anyway...don't want to digress further...the point of the thread is to look at the logic of the towers falling. You have made your point about the hijackers not knowing or even expecting the towers to fall down...and I accept that as a possibility.

But, the towers fall was "unnatural" from my uneducated perspective. It is illogical in any human known sense...3 towers...hit at different floors, different sides...destroyed...and add to that mysterious fall of the WTC7...same level of destruction, and hit only by debris of the towers.

The manner is unbelievable...from any perspective. I wouldn't contest it if they crashed differently...or half way...or partially...but not in this way. Identical. Now that's a lottery winner right there. One in a million shot if it was accidental.

To me..it all points to the fact that towers "had help". Whether it was a plan by the hijackers or somebody else did it...it's in the realm of speculation. You don't have to believe in the inside job theory...but damn it man...something was weird beyond any possible coincidence.

MarioOnTheFly


But, the towers fall was "unnatural" from my uneducated perspective. It is illogical in any human known sense...3 towers...hit at different floors, different sides...destroyed...and add to that mysterious fall of the WTC7...same level of destruction, and hit only by debris of the towers.

The manner is unbelievable...from any perspective. I wouldn't contest it if they crashed differently...or half way...or partially...but not in this way. Identical. Now that's a lottery winner right there. One in a million shot if it was accidental.

I don't share your view that a tower falling down is odd when an enormous passenger jet has ploughed into it. In any case your opinion seems purely to be based on how it 'seems' to you - a layman, as you admit. That's fine, but as you say yourself it's not persuasive.

The "what are the odds" standpoint is particularly bizarre. The chance of three towers falling down on any given day is obviously extremely low, but the chance of three towers collapsing when hit by planes and debris, and having been subjected to unfought fires, would seem quite high. And the chance of them collapsing in broadly similar ways - the collapses were far from identical, as you claim - is also relatively high.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

but the chance of three towers collapsing when hit by planes and debris, and having been subjected to unfought fires, would seem quite high.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, such a fall of the 3 towers is highly unlikely, considering the undeniable fact that all 3 had different levels of initial damage. The first tower was hit dead on, the second was off center of the tower, more towards one corner of the building, and the third was only hit by falling debris...yet...they fell right down to he floor...completely destroyed...and when I say "identical"...i mean into it's own footprint...completely destroying all parts of the structure.

Now, I'm a poker man...I know what odds are. In my universe...such an event is highly unlikely to happen naturally. Fire is not intelligent. It does not calculate or have preference.

If this was a natural fire induced collapse...than a hundred years worth of civilization construction and engineering and fireproofing...we can scrape all that and chuck in the bin. Obviously means jack sh** in real life situations.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

but the chance of three towers collapsing when hit by planes and debris, and having been subjected to unfought fires, would seem quite high.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, such a fall of the 3 towers is highly unlikely, considering the undeniable fact that all 3 had different levels of initial damage. The first tower was hit dead on, the second was off center of the tower, more towards one corner of the building, and the third was only hit by falling debris...yet...they fell right down to he floor...completely destroyed...and when I say "identical"...i mean into it's own footprint...completely destroying all parts of the structure.

But the briefest perusal of videos of the collapses shows them to be different. None of the buildings fell into their footprint - indeed the "columns being hurled outside the footprint" is often cited by conspiracy theorists as evidence of demolition.

The towers looked similar once they began falling (although the top section of Tower 2 fell differently, and the tower took much less time to initiate collapse - another difference) but they were constructed almost identically. It's not surprising that they failed in key ways that were broadly similar.

Now, I'm a poker man...I know what odds are. In my universe...such an event is highly unlikely to happen naturally. Fire is not intelligent. It does not calculate or have preference.

I'd love to play you! Given that you admit that you don't have the expertise for this and that it just "looks odd" to you, I'd suspect you might be one of those guys who tries for a gutshot straight because he's "running hot".

If this was a natural fire induced collapse...than a hundred years worth of civilization construction and engineering and fireproofing...we can scrape all that and chuck in the bin. Obviously means jack sh** in real life situations.

Presumably you are talking about Building Seven here? And once again, sorry, but you are showing your lack of knowledge of the event. Construction and fireproofing regulations were altered because of what happened.

If you're also talking about the Towers then I'm not sure any regulations can do much about the effect of a massive airliner hitting a building.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


uh..this is going on and on...ok...I'll do my bit...

indeed the "columns being hurled outside the footprint" is often cited by conspiracy theorists as evidence of demolition.

indeed...it is often cited but for entirely different reasons...CT are arguing about explosives being planted as a rational explanation for beams being ejected hundreds of meters away from towers. I do not wish to speculate on that as I'm sure there are no models to explain perfectly the ejection of the beams...with or without explosives. NIST concluded that it must have been due to pressure from the upper floors pressing down...but...it is a best guess from them, not an actual explanation.


As for similarities of the towers collapses...you are nitpicking tiny details. Overall, their fall is the same. Both were hit up high, both collapsed completely...not partially...not sideways. Full collapse. A 100 % hit so to speak. Can you get a 100 % success on 3 objects of that size in an accidental manner (as in..not planned) ? I guess you think you can...

I'd love to play you! Given that you admit that you don't have the expertise for this and that it just "looks odd" to you, I'd suspect you might be one of those guys who tries for a gutshot straight because he's "running hot".

I suspect you might be one of those guys that only plays with pocket aces or kings...

Construction and fireproofing regulations were altered because of what happened.

Were they ? really ? I've actually heard exactly the opposite...that no changes were made. Perhaps you can point me to somewhere where I could possibly verify this ?

MarioOnTheFly


indeed...it is often cited but for entirely different reasons...CT are arguing about explosives being planted as a rational explanation for beams being ejected hundreds of meters away from towers. I do not wish to speculate on that as I'm sure there are no models to explain perfectly the ejection of the beams...with or without explosives. NIST concluded that it must have been due to pressure from the upper floors pressing down...but...it is a best guess from them, not an actual explanation.

But this is my point. Conspiracy theorists claim that the towers fell into their footprints and also... didn't. How can they have ejected "tons of debris" and also fallen "perfectly into their footprint"? It's an example of what you seem to do above - take any information, no matter how conflicting, and claim that it supports the thesis.

As for similarities of the towers collapses...you are nitpicking tiny details. Overall, their fall is the same. Both were hit up high, both collapsed completely...not partially...not sideways. Full collapse. A 100 % hit so to speak. Can you get a 100 % success on 3 objects of that size in an accidental manner (as in..not planned) ? I guess you think you can...

I don't agree that the details are tiny. The towers were hit differently and took radically different times to fail. Their collapses look very different to Building Seven with its penthouse collapse (usually not shown by CTers, by the way). In fact the towers look dissimilar to each other at initiation - watch the videos where the south tower loses its upper section and you can clearly see that it topples outwards from within the dust field.

I suspect you might be one of those guys that only plays with pocket aces or kings...

I only play triple draw low ball

Were they ? really ? I've actually heard exactly the opposite...that no changes were made. Perhaps you can point me to somewhere where I could possibly verify this ?

It's all over the place. Unless you stick to conspiracy websites in which case you will get lied to.

Try google, which in an instant tossed up

www.syska.com...

www.nfpa.org...

I suppose it's possible that all these professionals are in on it. I seriously doubt it though.