Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Lest We Forget: 9/11 twelve years later. Part II

Apologies in advance for the length of this post and the previous one.  I pride myself on the brevity of my writing because exorbitant length is counter-productive to my goals.  I'm trying to get my readers to think about these topics on their own rather than simply beating them over the head with what I think.  It goes back to the theorists vs. believers issue.  I've found it disappointingly common that most people will readily allow you to think for them simply because they don't want to or can't be bothered to, and keeping things short and to the point (hopefully) prevents someone from adopting my beliefs as their own. 

Length here is necessary, however.  These are my first, last, and only posts exclusively on 9/11.  It isn't that I'm not interested in the topic, but that the issues of 9/11 have been adequately covered elsewhere.  I feel that my time is best used on more obscure events that have traditionally received less attention; the very type of things that have been overshadowed by 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I believe that is in these smaller events that one gets a better look into the inner workings of things -- the participants and the motives behind them.  9/11 is perhaps too big to adequately get one's arms around.  To do the topic justice would require a level of dedicated research that I'm not currently willing to devote to a singular topic.  Furthermore, my limited insight into what my (small) readership likes tells me that you're more interested in the obscure rather than this very familiar topic.  So, barring a massive new revelation like a whistleblower, this will likely be the last you'll hear from me on 9/11 short of connections made to other topics.

Just to continue the aside for a moment, the lack of a whistleblower is a frequent criticism thrown up by skeptics in regards to every conspiracy theory and 9/11 in particular.  "Someone would have talked by now," is the mantra repeated most often, as if keeping a secret was beyond the capabilities of mere mortals.  History shows us that disciplined people, such as those in the military or intelligence agencies, are particular talented at keeping secrets.  In fact, it's what they do best.  Case in point: Iran-Contra was kept a secret for years, even from other people inside the same organizations running it.  It wasn't until a freak occurrence -- the downing of Eugene Hasenfus' plane -- that it began to surface.  The current Edward Snowden media circus revolves around the fact that the NSA was spying on Americans for years and, to date, only one out of the thousands of people involved wasn't able to keep the secret.  That fact also means the corollary argument -- "it would take too many people...the truth would leak out" -- also goes out the window since thousands of people routinely keep the same secret.  The "lot of participants" argument is shot as well, since in regards to 9/11 the government's theory only involves about 30 people tops: the 19 hijackers, Bin Laden, and some top lieutenants.  If 30 people pulled off 9/11, what could 50 do? A 100?

While I'm delaying the inevitable: the topic of 9/11 is still very relevant to current events.  It strains credulity to think that the timing of the Syrian conflict is mere coincidence.  The administration has made it clear that this is going to happen whether or not Congress approves or not and has ignored the fact that the American public has stated -- with rare unanimity -- that they absolutely do not want this.  The rest of the world isn't too keen on it either.  It is difficult to imagine a less popular course of action than war in Syria, but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to fathom anything else happening at this point.

Now on to Part II: the "Hows"
  • The companion to the ubiquitous false flag theory is the theory that World Trade Center was brought down via controlled demolition.  This is the position of one of the most vocal and respected 9/11 critic groups, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group of experts on this sort of thing.  Another vocal proponent of controlled demolition is Dr. David Ray Griffin, who, despite the highly technical descriptions of things found in his writings, is not an expert at this sort of thing -- he's a doctor of philosophy and theology.  That's not an attack on Dr. Griffin, simply a reminder to readers to be conscious of what information you're getting from whom and whether or not they are qualified to give it.  Controlled demolition theories range from appeals to common sense ("just look at how it fell," etc) to extremely detailed discussions of architecture, psychics, fire science, and demolitions.  AE911's website is a treasure trove of information on this theory written at various levels of detail.  I'll paraphrase the most tantalizing quick facts used in their literature to support this theory:
1. The WTC's steel support frame should have slowed the decent, but in fact the opposite occurred, with the building collapsing at near free-fall speeds.
2.  "High velocity ejections" -- i.e. lateral explosions of material coming perpendicular to the buildings, were observed and are highly indicative of explosions from inside the building.
3.  Complete destruction of the building materials, including the mid-air pulverization of 18,000 tons of concrete, cannot be accounted for simply via building collapse.  Along those same lines, the existing debris fell within the footprint of the original buildings; again indicative of controlled demolition.
4.  Many scientists find it unlikely that jet fuel and ignited debris would have been sufficient enough fuel to generate the necessary 2800 degree Fahrenheit temperatures required to compromise the WTC's steel supports and account for the reports of molten steel.
  • The controlled demoltion theorists are divided into several camps for theories on just how this would have been accomplished.  The most prevalent is the idea that thermite explosives were placed on the supports in the period leading up to 9/11.  AE911 and Dr. Griffin support this theory and both cite evidence of thermite in the buildings' rubble as proof.  9/11-as-occult-ritual theorists are fond of stating that the explosives were planted inside the building as it was built, with the idea that the towers were built to be destroyed having resonance with them.  This theory ignores the fact that explosives typically don't age well.  On the outskirts of this theory are the ideas of Dimitri Khalezov, who states in his film "The Real Truth about 911" that the towers were brought down by atomic bombs placed beneath them before they were built.
  • The "smoking gun" of controlled demolition theory is the collapse of WTC Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane or any significant pieces of debris.  Building 7's collapse is a marquee issue for all stripes of 9/11 theorists since it, even more so than the rest, is least supported by the official version of events.  To make matters worse for the government's case, both CNN and the BBC both reported that the WTC7 collapsed before it actually happened.  Watch both clips to see the anchors discussing the collapse with the building clearly visible in the background.  Remember Building 7 is currently one of the more popular 9/11 truth movements.
Adding credence to the controlled demolition claims is the fact that the World Trade Center was specifically designed to withstand an airplane strike.  In fact, there are some who are surprised the planes were able to penetrate the building's superstructure at all, given that in a battle of aluminum vs. steel, steel will always win regardless of the velocity and mass of the aluminum object.  This has led to claims of objects other than planes being used.

"No planes" theories come in a variety of flavors.  The missile strike theory is a popular one, with several theorists claiming that -- from the right angle -- one can clearly see a missile, not a plane, striking the WTC.  The "remotely controlled plane" theory was popular in the years immediately following 9/11, but has for some reason lost favor now despite the fact that we know about drones.  A growing aspect of conspiracism is the idea that all events are completely faked; simulated by media trickery.  This claim has been levelled against the Aurora massacre, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Bombing, but it got it's start with 9/11.  September Clues is the definitive "9/11 as simulation" film, and if you click the link you can watch the full film.  You're better off hearing it from them rather than me.

Of course the most well-known "no planes" theory is the one that has the Pentagon being struck by a missile.  The small size of the entry hole into the Pentagon caused many to believe that it was impossible for a large commercial plane to have made it, and many trained pilots are on record stating that the alleged path of descent is impossible with that type of aircraft.  The biggest Pentagon missile conspiracy theorists are, surprise!, government officials.  Just listen to Tim Roemer slip up. Donald Rumsfield says he never saw any plane debris. And for good measure, here's a CNN report from a reporter on-site who states he can't see anything resembling a plane

There are about a thousand or more theories regarding 9/11; far too many to cover here.  The best researched site on 9/11, Killtown, is unfortunately no longer available but can be viewed on Archive.org. 

An excellent timeline of key events and hard data about the planes.
Complete list of oddities surrounding the event.  An amazing piece of research.

More information on 9/11 can be found in an instant via Google, but, again, I'd like to suggest that you do your own research and devise your own theories.  Libraries, newspapers, and books are still an excellent source of information on every topic.  As you can see from the above, Internet sites have a habit of disappearing.  It could turn out that you spend some time looking into 9/11 and reach the conclusion that the official version is 100% correct.  Even if I don't agree with you, I'll respect you infinitely more for thinking for yourself than simply believing what you're told.