9-11 Conspiracy Theories thread

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

If the museum does it job well, more people will hopefully look a little more critical at what happened, both leading up to 9/11 as well as what happened afterwards. I can guarantee you however, that if everyone just pretends it never happened, no one, especially not the people born after 9/11, will critically engage with what happened afterwards. If that happens, they will just grow up not knowing any better about the TSA or the Patriot Act. 9/11 represents a turning point in American history, and with a museum, hopefully some people will learn something from it. Hopefully they will realize that what followed was utter madness. 

 

 

I get your point though. 9/11 is still getting abused by a number of politicians to make their absolutely ridiculous points, to the extend that they have managed to rob 9/11 from much of its meaning. 

 

 

And hopefully what actually occurred during the day. There are a considerable number of accounts from the workers who evacuated from the towers, and the firemen who went into them to rescue people, about hearing and being in the midst of explosions within the buildings many minutes after the plane crashes. These ain't explosions around or inside the area where the planes crashed, but explosions many floors below- even an explosion in the basement. When it was all being broadcast live, the explosions were heard, the reporters at the scene said so the moment afterwards and with much talk of 'bombs in the building'. On the day everyone was talking about it: the survivors, the firemen, the reporters...

 

Yet somehow these events have been totally forgotten about amongst the general public and the media. Thankfully most of the live coverage has been posted on Youtube and other video-sharing sites. Just think about that for a moment, bombs in the building. How did they get in there unnoticed? You can't say these internal explosions never happened because it was recorded so extensively and so many people in the buildings were witness to this.

 

I hope, naively, that the 9/11 museum contains a collection of the survivor's testimony, ALL of it from those survivors who wish to tell their story and who have already told their story, even the parts which don't fit with the general narrative that was formed after the event. If the 9/11 museum is about remembering the victims then the simplest way is to read their first hand accounts. If this museum omits certain testimonies and accounts, then that would be a real insult to all who suffered during 9/11.

 

On a personal note, on the day when the twin towers collapsed I could not believe it, I saw them pulverize before my very eyes. I still can't believe it, never before (or after) have uncontrolled fires brought down a steel-framed building clad with concrete, and when you watch it again on Youtube it looks even worse. Two things though have always caught my eye. One was the top bit of the North Tower as it began collapsing, about two thirds of it disappeared/disintegrated before the floors, below where the plane struck, finally give way. The second thing was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse, to the right of WTC7 you can see a few core columns (or outer columns it is hard to tell) which are still standing in a tight cluster of about several hundred feet in height, standing taller than WTC7. Eventually they collapse as the supports at the bottom must have given way, but not before they turn to DUST. That steel either pulverized or vaporized, one of the two. What does that to steel?

 

Then in the aftermath there are burnt out vehicles which are littered around the site of the collapse. Those billowing clouds of concrete and dust must have been very hot to cause such damage to these vehicles. In fact there is only one natural phenomenon which behaves in a similar fashion- pyroclastic flows from volcanoes. Whatever caused the twin towers to completely structurally fail, AND pulverise, AND generate vast clouds of hot dust, AND produce ruins which smouldered inside due to molten steel underneath, IS clearly a lot more than just fires caused by the crashed planes. How do fires started from a crashed plane generate enough heat to disintegrate thousands of tons of concrete and melt dozens of tons of steel beams?

 

And all of this has been recorded on camera from dozens of different angles, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist or a '911truther' to acknowledge that. It is all there on Youtube, it's part of history albeit a very overlooked piece of history. It is not about coming up with alternative definitive answers, for that enters the realm of conspiracy theory land, it is about asking the right questions which arise from witness accounts and actual footage of the events... And seeing how the official explanation holds up in the light of phenomenon witnessed during both the collapse and aftermath which were unprecedented. Officially engineers have given up on finding a theory which can best explain the events of the collapse as detailed by the official explanation, there are theories but nothing conclusive.

 

These are pictures and videos which -- hopefully -- should be in this 9/11 museum: pictures of molten steel revealed from the uplifting of rubble, the burnt out fire engines. And I'm sure they will, and will add, in a small way, to the slowly growing view that the official explanation makes no sense. And I ain't trolling, there are quite a few 9/11 families who were not happy with the 9/11 commission report's findings and numerous survivors from the twin towers who attend "truther" meetings and conventions. Well that's my two cents on the matter.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Ugh please, 9/11 conspiracy theories are idiotic stupidity at best and shockingly offensive and insulting at worst. 

 

Remember, this is what you are claiming. That the US government somehow managed to place bombs (or something similar) all over the WTC, which is in the middle of Manhattan, without anyone noticing. Furthermore, they also managed to keep it a secret, as in no one involved in such a project has ever talked about their involvement. The sheer absurdity of such a claim is a good enough reason to reject it as illogical, unreasonable, implausible and impossible. And the best part is that 9/11 truthers base this nonsensical idiocy on little more than some photos and crappy youtube videos (let me remind you that HD wasn't a thing back then so those videos are also of crap resolution). 

 

Also, how many buildings do you know off that were first hit by a passenger plane, set on fire by the jet fuel and where filled with office furniture (which tends to burn at some pretty hot temperatures once set on fire). Combined by the weight of the upper parts of the towers, the extreme heat and the explosion itself, is it really so difficult to understand that a steel frame of a building might not be build to withstand that and that it collapses?  

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

"Yes.  Quite simple to pull off, really.  All I had to do was have explosives planted into the base of the Towers.  Then on 9-11 we pretended like 4 planes were being hijacked when really we just re-routed them into Pennsylvania and then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F15 and blowin' up the Pentagon with a cruise missile.  It was only the world's most intricate, flawlessly-executed plan ever EVER."

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Conspiracy theorists give me an acute case of cafard of the imagination.  Next these paranoids will be telling us that the big U.S. networks were also part of the plot.

 

CNN may be biased, but at least they try, as do the others.  Handi-cam and phone videos are much more likely to have been edited after the fact than the live newscasts.  Go be afraid of shadows in your own alley.

[Fatherted 129]

It's extremely likely a plan of this scale was sanctioned or even run by the government. The WTC was a symbol of American pride than means NOTHING to the government but would be an excellent way to institute police state Stage II. Also, explosives can be easily hidden. Very easily. Small and extremely powerful, read: C4 Mark II.

Letting the government tell you 9/11 was terrorists and should not be questioned further is akin to letting the government tell you that Jews are thieves. It's an insult to anyone who ever died in a terrorist attack, state sanctioned or not.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

The WTC wasn't a symbol of anything, and the only people who knew what it was were people who were into skyscrapers, or people who were aware of it being a landmark (like Sears Tower in Chicago). The tourists that were there were there because it was called "the world's tallest building" in their tourist brochures. And even with it being in brochures, tourists and locals didn't even really like the buildings very much. The name of the building was "the world trade center" which sounds very aspirational and symbolic but do you know how many cities have "world trade centers"? It's a common name for office projects. The WTC had the right ingredients to be symbolic after being attacked, but only after being attacked.

 

 

The conspiracy theories are comical.

 

Did you know that in WW2 the US didn't actually nuke two cities? Japan's government did it because they needed sufficient justification to surrender to end the war. And yes, there were actual nukes, and they were the US's nukes and they were dropped by the US military, and the US wanted to drop them and were trying to anyway, but Japan's government sanctioned it! But the nukes were just for show, the real damage was caused by thousands of small bombs that were planted underground in the sewer system! Look at this youtube video! That's not how women and children would be vaporized if it was a *real* nuclear attack!!

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's extremely likely a plan of this scale was sanctioned or even run by the government. The WTC was a symbol of American pride than means NOTHING to the government but would be an excellent way to institute police state Stage II. Also, explosives can be easily hidden. Very easily. Small and extremely powerful, read: C4 Mark II.

Letting the government tell you 9/11 was terrorists and should not be questioned further is akin to letting the government tell you that Jews are thieves. It's an insult to anyone who ever died in a terrorist attack, state sanctioned or not.

Have you never seen what it takes to blow up a building? It takes weeks, if not longer to prepare the building, attach the explosives, and a sizeable crew of explosive experts whose job it is to demolish buildings like that. You do not bring down the WTC with a few packages of C4 tied to some of the support columns of the building. There is no way they can do that in the middle of freaking Manhattan without anyone noticing. And then there is the fact that absolutely no one talked about being part of the crew that participated in what then would be the government biggest crime against its own people. People always talk if they are part of something like this. Come on, the American government is terrible at keeping secrets. Watergate, Area 51, Vietnam dossiers, Wikileaks, the NSA files, that are all things that came out while it was supposed to remain secret, but somehow this government has managed to keep what would amount to one of the most complicated schemes in American history a total secret? 

 

If you want to be skeptical about what the government tells you? Sure, great, be skeptical. But skepticism means you want to be convinced by evidence, and 9/11 truthers cherry pick evidence and ignore the the thousands of pages of evidence that shows that the WTC came down because airplanes flew right into those buildings. You are not skeptical because you reject evidence in favor of some illogical explanation. 

[Fatherted 129]

Aeroplanes would not set off explosions in the basement levels. Simple as.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Aeroplanes would not set off explosions in the basement levels. Simple as.

There were no explosions at the basement levels. 

[basty_goofy 24]

There are puh-lenty of things that explode in the case of a catastrophe like 9/11. Heating and cooling systems, the power network of the building, the water supply. Occam's Razor, you conspiracy nuts.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you get it hot enough, even a water cooler will explode.  Hot fires such as those fuelled by jet aircraft propellants can cause everyday things to explode simply from internal pressure.  The imagination of these people all these years after the fact just indicates that they have little to do.

[Fatherted 129]

Occam's razor is stupid simply because if we applied that to everything:

Murders would always be by the person who most publically disliked the victim

Terrorist attacks would always be by the group that claimed they did it

Wikipedia has the simplest explanation; therefore it is always right.

How do you think 4 different planes were hijacked without some kind of sanction? The security at airports must have been bloody awful...

[LexusInfernus 908]

Occam's razor is stupid simply because if we applied that to everything:

Murders would always be by the person who most publically disliked the victim

Terrorist attacks would always be by the group that claimed they did it

Wikipedia has the simplest explanation; therefore it is always right.

How do you think 4 different planes were hijacked without some kind of sanction? The security at airports must have been bloody awful...

The security at airports was bloody awful. 

 

And tell me, if you are investigating a murder, isnt the first suspect the guy that hated the victim the most? Or are you going to ignore him in favor of wild theory that has absolutely no evidence to support it or makes any sense? 

And if terrorists claim they did an attack, why wouldn't you believe them unless you have good evidence to suggest they are lying? Why would you operate on the basis that they did not tell the truth, that someone else did the attacks when again, you got no evidence to suggest that? 

 

Look, Occams Razor says that in 9 out 10 times, the most likely explanation is the correct one. That means there is still 1 out of 10 times where it is not the case. But, you would be an idiot to operate on the idea that everytime something happened, its the exception to the rule. Before you start even thinking about it being a possible exception to the rule, you first need very convincing evidence that the rule does not apply and that this is the exception. In the case of 9/11, all the evidence very clearly points to 9/11 being carried out by Muslim extremists who hijacked 4 planes, crashed 3 of those planes into the WTC and Pentagon and lost control over the 4th plane. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job by the American government and that the towers were brought down by anything other than those airplanes. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

When you have eliminated all the possibles, and you have to be sure, then what ever is left is the truth.

 

In today's world of spin, you have to be very good at unravelling things.  Conspiracy theories do their absolute best to 'trammel up the consequences' to support some ridiculous rationalization that can not easily be disproved.

 

With respect to the twin towers, the principles used in the construction were such that if you destroyed any set of adjacent floors the whole works would come down like a house of cards.  Both buildings were supported only by their curtain walls.  As floors fell on those beneath you get an exponential failure.  Those above, having lost their support, simply followed.  Clever architecture and engineering is sometimes a little too clever, and never accounted for this type of totally uncivilized disaster.

[Fatherted 129]

Multiple terrorist groups tend to claim responsibility. Cue the IRA attacks which across their span, more than 10 groups claimed responsibility.

Also, murders (apart from those easy to trace, knife-in-hand situations), are often not the public hater(s). They are someone who took a deep seated blow (usually from the victim) and nurtured hatred. Often they have developed mental disorders post-blow and end up taking revenge. See, for instance, corporate murders after a firing.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Fire does not cause complete structural failure in steel-framed buildings. If it did no skyscrapers would be built because it is almost impossible for fire fighters to put out a large-scale skyscraper fire. In fact if steel structures, or devices, failed and/or collapsed due to fire or exposure to high temperatures for a duration of time, you would not have electric cookers, electric heaters or the combustion engine.

Other gems of implausibility include a collapse where both buildings fell with an acceleration various close to a large fraction of g (=9.81m/s). If it was a pancake collapse, where the floors collapsed on top of each other and then the core columns followed afterwards, then the velocity of every coalesced floor -- and those above it -- increased in speed.

Basic conservation of momentum equations (assuming the coefficient of restitution = 1, i.e. perfect conservation of mechanical energy) tells you that when a moving object strikes a stationary object, and the two coalesce (behave as one joined object in motion) the energy in this system before and after remains the same. But the speed of the two coalesced objects is less than the speed of the first moving object.

So if the steel supports kept simultaneously failing on floors from the collapse above, the collapse would have slowed down even more so given that mechanical energy would be lost due to friction, the floors intertia and the normal reaction exerted upwards. Nevertheless, the collapse of the twin towers was a big screw you to Newtonian mechanics and the rules of momentum if you believe the official explanation for the collapse. It can only make sense if a floor -- below the collapsing one above -- itself collapsed BEFORE the one above impacted. This would account for the lack of resistance, building redundancy and rapid collapse. How else can you explain a collapse where the buildings fell down with an acceleration of a rather large fraction of g?

It was also a horrible blemish to the engineers and architects who built the twin towers. Yeah those aeroplanes made a big dent, yes the plane wings cut through a quarter of the outer columns (on several floors) before disintegrating, and yes the the passenger part cut through a tiny part of several out of 50 core columns. But both buildings were a grid-like mesh of steel girders and columns, a frame which could flex and thus absorb impacts (wind and sadly hijacked planes), and such a design gives a LOT of redundancy.

Redundancy is that magic word of engineers which means a structure has several or more ways of supporting itself if parts of the structure are damaged or destroyed. Heck, the architects designed the twin towers to withstand an impact from a Boeing 747, a plane whose weight and size is about the same as a Boeing 777. An impact at ANY level of the building. The twin towers should have remained standing. What should have happened was that the fires would have burnt all through the day and all through the night. They would not have spread further since every floor was hermetically sealed, thus every floor not damaged by the plane would have been devoid of fire.

And even in the worse case scenario, had the fires spread downwards and burnt every floor. The core structure of the twin towers would still be standing; the steel-frame would be largely intact and most of the concrete would still be in place. You would be left with two horrible blackened eyesores of buildings but they would be standing. That is what always happens after a major skyscraper fire, you see it in the news all the time.

If it were not for foul play, and rigged explosives, two burnt-out buildings would have been the defining image of 9/11 or two partially burnt-out buildings.

 

////////

 

 

With respect to the twin towers, the principles used in the construction were such that if you destroyed any set of adjacent floors the whole works would come down like a house of cards.  Both buildings were supported only by their curtain walls.  As floors fell on those beneath you get an exponential failure.  Those above, having lost their support, simply followed.  Clever architecture and engineering is sometimes a little too clever, and never accounted for this type of totally uncivilized disaster.

 

That is not true!

 

The twin towers were steel framed buildings supported by both the curtain walls (outer steel columns) and core columns in the centre. The core columns were all braced together with horizontal steel beams that connected to the floor struts which connected to the outer columns. The very centre formed a grid-like lattice of columns and steel beams. So even when the airplane hit only a small fraction of core columns, which were cut in two from the central part of the plane. While the wings completely disintegrated the moment they hit the curtain walls.

 

So if a large part of the curtain wall was missing on one side of the floor, the floor struts would still have support from the core columns. The floor struts had considerable support from both the core columns and the curtain walls, this was a rather hollow steel-framed design and gave further structural integrity and redundancy. Curtain walls were never the key support to the twin towers, if they were they would buckle and collapse from high winds while carrying the weight of floors above.

 

Even by your argument, if all the floors did come down the core columns and the central lattice structure would still be standing. Think of the twin towers as a structure (curtain walls and floors) built within a structure (core columns and horizontal beams).

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Several floors on fire simultaneously with a very powerful accelerant (Jet fuel) in abundance will bring temperatures to a point of failure for steel/concrete structures like the twin towers.

 

There were no core columns in the classical building sense.  Only elevator and stairway shafts.  In an earthquake situation, the results may well have been similar.  Once the corner support was lost, down went McGuinty.  The mass/momentum equations don't consider the accretion of the falling mass.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Several floors on fire simultaneously with a very powerful accelerant (Jet fuel) in abundance will bring temperatures to a point of failure for steel/concrete structures like the twin towers.

 

There were no core columns in the classical building sense.  Only elevator and stairway shafts.  In an earthquake situation, the results may well have been similar.  Once the corner support was lost, down went McGuinty.  The mass/momentum equations don't consider the accretion of the falling mass.

 

Nearly all that jet fuel burnt up in the crash, why do you think those fireballs were so big? And with all of that black smoke these fires were both oxygen starved and lacking a fuel, a catalyst, to really burn at a higher temperature. The fire was coloured orange to a dull red, if it had been a really hot fire it would have been far more yellow and/or white.

 

Consider the Windsor Tower in Madrid. In 2005 the entire building caught fire, a bright ferocious fire full of bright yellows.

 

 

 

Though gutted it survived with nearly all of the steel structure intact and most of the concrete intact to, there were a couple of minor collapses but the core structure was still standing.

 

 

 

Fire does not completely destroy steel-framed skyscrapers, it gutters them sure. As I said on the TV you see numerous times the aftermath of a fire which sweeps through a skyscraper or large office block. The core structure survives. Only three times in history has a steel-framed building caught fire and completely collapsed: the twin towers and WTC 7. Other skyscrapers have suffered far worse fires and remained standing. THIS should have been the sight of the twin towers once the fires burnt out, a horrible charred mess but with the core structure intact.

 

///

 

 

To answer your second paragraph:

 

There ARE huge thick core columns which comprised the centre of WTC 1 and 2's steel framed structure, to say otherwise is to be totally disingenuous. The elevator and stairway shafts were built between these core columns. It is in the blueprints, and you always see them in numerous construction pictures.

 

 

And here is the PROOF that WTC 1 and 2 had huge core columns to support the entire structure. Notice that these columns extend all the way to the centre of the building, note also the lattice structure encasing the core columns. Furthermore notice how thin these floors are in relation to the distance from the curtain walls to the core columns. This was one sturdy building.

 

Are these the "core columns in the classical building sense" you are looking for?

 

 

Edit: Apologies for the snark in the sentence above, but I couldn't resist.

[Fatherted 129]

Nonny, the jet fuel was burned up by the colossal impact.

 

The towers would have been severely structurally damaged and beyond repair, but they would not both have fallen like a house of cards. The structure was built to repel a large bomb. The floors were effectively completely sealed from each other and the (non-existent) jet fuel would not have been sufficient to burn through all floors top and bottom. Even if the fires transmitted somehow, the steel would be sufficient to hold up the tower, unless something were to strike the supporting beams in multiple different places. Cue the firebombs within the elevator shafts.

 

Bombers managed to cause a catastrophe in Boston undetected, why would Manhattan be different.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just how many tonnes of Jet Fuel were each of those airliners carrying?  Do you really think it would all go in one gigantic fireball?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Just how many tonnes of Jet Fuel were each of those airliners carrying?  Do you really think it would all go in one gigantic fireball?

 

Absolutely, with the rest burning up pretty quickly in a matter of minutes. That would be the primary fuel for the fires initially and then office furniture and other flammable items would then become the primary fuel. I think in the first few minutes the fires would be pretty hot, probably at least a 1000 degrees centigrade. But since they're burning in a confined space they become starved of oxygen the temperature would drop a few hundred degrees lower. Once most of the jet fuel had been burnt, the fires would cool some more to probably around 400 to 500 degree as the fires transitioned from a fuel fire to a massive office fire.

 

Deadly for humans but not nearly hot enough to melt steel in large quantities as was shown in the South Tower's final moments. Interestingly the molten steel, well it was some kind of molten metal, was flowing away from an area of the curtain wall which collapsed and triggered the complete collapse. Now whatever was being burnt as fuel was producing temperatures well in excess of 1500 degrees centigrade. If you look carefully at this video, inside it looks like the middle of a furnace. Soon afterwards the tower collapses you can see plumes of debris and dust blasting out below in a quick sequential succession as several stories above the top part of the tower topples into itself.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiWQFqGO_k

 

 

Oh yes check out this video of a cargo Boeing 747 crashing after takeoff. The fireball it produces engulfs the entire plane. Nearly all of the fuel is consumed by the fireball which hast to be red hot, at least a 1000 degrees centigrade, to emit such a vast amount of light. Also RIP to the poor pilots.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksDISvCmNI

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I see you are busy denying the results of the TSB studies, so I assume your minds are made up.

[Fatherted 129]

TSB studies, being goverment funded, of course.

A plane crash causes a fireball. Nothing should have collapsed on that scale on 9/11.

[Compdude787 916]

Sorry, but I really don't believe all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job. Why the heck would the government kill 3000 people just for an excuse to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq? We would have found out by now if that was true. Think about it; all the scandals in the Obama administration have been revealed relatively soon after they happened. If 9/11 was an inside job, Bush would easily have been impeached for doing something like that.

Also, I do think that those two planes, full of fuel, would cause quite a fireball and really hot temps inside the building. The steel in the WTC could have easily gotten hot enough to melt. Even the impact from a plane flying at several hundred mph would have been enough to easily damage the steel. Then the heat would cause it to collapse on itself and fall down.

Oh, another thing for you truthers to think about: why would the government want to destroy part of one of its own buildings, the Pentagon? Hmmm....

[Sabretooth78 808]

I've always been curious as to why WTC 7 collapsed several hours after the primary collapses, and why the collapse of a 47 (?) story building never seemed to generate more of a response than "oh look, another building just collapsed...anyway...".  Not to mention the contents of said building only make it more suspicious.

 

I agree, I don't think you need a conspiracy to bring the whole plot together any more than you need one to explain the rampant expansion of the police state in the US (in the case of the latter it's just the natural tendency of an unchecked government).  To blissfully gloss over known inconsistencies just because the government says "it couldn't have happened that way" is equally if not more dangerous.  Also remember, the inquiry into the explosion of TWA Flight 800 took longer and was far more detailed than that following 9/11.  That speaks volumes as well.

 

If there was no inside knowledge of any kind within the US government (something I will never believe, but I will posit for argument's sake), they certainly knew quite well how to take advantage of the aftermath (and they still do)... [Anti]Patriot Act, TSA, Iraq War, etc.  To the ruling class in this country, achieving these long-standing goals would have been well worth the collateral loss of 3000 civilians; whether or not they caused, abetted or failed to prevent it.  That's actually worse than complicity in my mind.  Meanwhile the idiot masses of this country continue to view politics from the eyes of a sports fan...what one side does is perfectly OK as long as it's my side.  See also Bush = Obama = meaningless figurehead.

 

The bottom line is, thanks to the actions of the US government subsequent to the attack and continuing to this day, the attack itself is probably viewed by whoever plotted and executed it as being more wildly successful than they ever would have thought in their wildest dreams.

 

Question everything.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There is no question that the 9/11 attack was a roaring success.  Terrorized the entire US populace and the government into many foolish knee-jerk reactions including a large loss of freedom.  The US is now on the slippery slope to a police state.  How long before you can up and denounce your neighbour out of sheer pique?

[Fatherted 129]

Why destroy the Pentagon?

The plane clipped the most unimportant wing, and unsurprisingly, nobody was in the area when it struck. Call a mandatory "staff meeting" to keep the worker bees in check and alive and well.

Also, nothing struck WTC 7 and it had no cause to collapse. But what was inside it, hmm?

Also, governments of the past have used this trick. Stalin's own government got purged every few years "for the people", and Kim Il Sung blamed it all on the US when citizens of Pyongyang died. It's a common tactic that can be used to crack down on those who believe their own government would never wrong them.

Suppose that the government had nothing to do with any collapse, hmm? Suppose the central columns still couldn't hold up the towers?

Why did WTC 7 collapse?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Why did WTC 7 collapse?

 

I believe the official line is something about impacts from debris from the destruction of the other towers.  Surprising, considering those towers fell cleaner than most controlled demolitions hope to achieve.  That and I would assume some fires, which you have to think weren't very engulfing.

 

Oh, and Giuliani's central control/police/whatever it was center that for some reason he knew better than to report to that day, along with Enron and WorldCom files which are now forever lost...  Hmmmmmmmmm....

[Odainsaker 2,133]

125 people working "unimportant" jobs in the Pentagon died during the attack, so it was not a case of "nobody was in the area when it struck" nor euphemized "mandatory 'staff meetings' to keep the worker bees in check."  C'mon!  Spurious exaggerations and the simple broad dismissing of the loss to real grieving families of unimportant worker bees for the sake of runaway armchair internet conspiracism about them being part of an American Stalinist purge would seem to fall into the realm of being "an insult to anyone who ever died in a terrorist attack, state sanctioned or not."

[Meg 368]

Why destroy the Pentagon?

The plane clipped the most unimportant wing, and unsurprisingly, nobody was in the area when it struck. Call a mandatory "staff meeting" to keep the worker bees in check and alive and well.

 

 

 

Excuse me?  Over 125 people were killed inside the Pentagon that day.   That's not counting the people on the plane.