L.A. to Prez: Yeah, right; Whatever
By Victor - Friday February 10th 2006 |
Tweet |
So the L.A. TV newsbots are buzzing like a fridge over the president’s revelation that our own Library Tower was the intended bullseye of a foiled terrorist plan in ’02. They are only too glad to echo the Prez’s words unchecked. Fox News took it even further, as only they can, providing a violent visual to drive home the point with a clip of a destroyed Library Tower from Independence Day. After all, a fearful audience is a consuming audience.
But I call bullshit on the whole revelation of an intercepted terrorist plot. As it is now known from the extensive (exhaustive) dissection of The Events of Nine-Eleven, these modern skyscrapers cannot be brought down by hi-jacked-plane-as-missile strikes, but require detonation of pre-planted explosives. This is not marginalized conspiracy theory claptrap; this is physics and eyewitness accounts from 9/11. So perhaps something went wrong with the inside job of planting-of-explosives. Then-mayor James Hahn has emerged to say he was told nothing about it at the time. Why not?
But even if this line of inside-job self-inflicted terrorism thinking is just a bit too dark for the masses, a heartening wide-spread skepticism is solidifying out there. A cross-section of the new popular mindset was captured by the Times:
Other downtown employees saw the new details as a political move by Bush to “keep us living in fear” and garner support for the war on terrorism.
“It’s a travesty…. I mean, we’ve caught him lying so many times,” said Mark Lea, who works at a major law firm in the Wells Fargo building next door. “He’s only doing this to draw up support for his domestic spying.”
Patrick Grover, who works on the tower’s 2nd floor, agreed.
“I’m not alarmed [by the threats],” Grover said. “I’m alarmed that they’re exploiting it years later.”
A few years ago, random man-on-street interviews would not yield lines like this. This is a good thing.
And seriously–shoe bombs? Shoe bombs were going to be used? To blow open locked cockpit doors? Who comes up with this shit? Renny Harlin?
> As it is now known from the extensive (exhaustive)
> dissection of The Events of Nine-Eleven, these
> modern skyscrapers cannot be brought down by
> hi-jacked-plane-as-missile strikes, but require
> detonation of pre-planted explosives. This is not
> marginalized conspiracy theory claptrap;
Uh, what?
No one with an iota of credibility honestly believes pre-planted explosives brought down the Twin Towers. Airliners full of jet fuel and structural failure was more than sufficient.
Interesting enough, Fires have never before (or after) brought down a steel structure. It’s a fact that firemen tend to run inside a steel building, better in there than outside under falling debris.
There’s also the point that jet fuel burns at a (relatively low) temperature, no where near the temp required to weaken, soften or otherwise diminish the integrity of fire-retardant covered steel beams.
Course, some of those beams could have been well and truly destroyed in the actual impact. It’s unfortunate that we can’t examine them because they were all shipped off before a forensic team was allowed to examine them. Bill Manning, editor of the firefighters trade mag “Fire Engineering Magazine” called it the biggest destruction of evidence in American history. (quoting him:”Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? … That’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately”)
The debate on the finer points and evidence in 9-11 will rage forever, simply because the government removed all of the evidence worth looking at. This is reason alone to be suspicious of what they tell you happened.
jk: You are right to be skeptical. But if you are curious, there is much information out there. Neal nails the main points on the improbability of steel building structural failure due to fire alone.
A new compilation of news clips from that day is making the rounds on file sharing sites. Search ‘loose change dvd.’ You can turn down the volume on all the narrator’s more accusatory commentary (which is compelling) and just watch the broadcast news footage that captured secondary detonations, along with interviews of firefighters on the scene that verify it.
> Interesting enough, Fires have never before (or
> after) brought down a steel structure. It’s a
> fact that firemen tend to run inside a steel
> building, better in there than outside under
> falling debris.
Don’t forget that the external steel structure of the WTC was what made it architecturally unique. This was no ordinary design, which was why the Towers managed to be the world’s tallest buildings for quite some time.
> There’s also the point that jet fuel burns at a
> (relatively low) temperature, no where near the
> temp required to weaken, soften or otherwise
> diminish the integrity of fire-retardant covered
> steel beams.
The steel beams didn’t fail. *The joints* failed. Have you read anything about the structural failure of the building, or just watched this paranoid documentary?
Look, we’ll all believe whatever we prefer to believe, and if it comforts you more to imagine that someone had to go wire the building with dynamite to bring it down, so be it. But don’t be surprised if most people react to you with incredulity.
>The steel beams didn’t fail. *The joints* failed.
So the joints weren’t made of steel too? What were they, wax?
I was only stating facts that seem completely incongrous to the official story of events on 9-11. I didn’t say I support the theory of planted explosives.
Again, my point is: the administration removed all pertintent evidence to support OR refute thier assertion of the day’s events. If they had nothing whatsoever to hide, why would they do this?
For me this is reason enough to believe they are complicit.
Because they can’t show evidence that they aren’t.
V. and neal have it mostly right. Here’s a good place to begin your rethinking, jk:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html