The latest 9/11 conspiracy theory

As an example of a good point they make the 'identities' of the hijackers came a bit too quickly and was shown to be flawed. Could be bad firensic work, operntunism, or part of a giant conspiracy or a combination of one and two (I don't see three as being combineable). But I do not think the fact that the ids were bullshit proves a conspiracy beyond that element. And if it was a consperacy why would the head of the FBI be admitting the IDs where "in doubt"

CavKiller37 wrote

I'm not sure about any initial denial, but I did see a video with him discussing the attacks. It was supposedly dated a day or so after the attack and showed him meeting with advisors. He was mimicking the buildings and crash with his hands. The translation said that he did not expect the towers to collapse, just to burn badly. He also said that allah had blessed them that the towers did collapse. I don't speak much Arabic so I can't verify the translation. It was on practically every network right around 11 SEP.

The video of a bearded man discussing the attacks was touted by the US as proof of involvement. If you watch that video while holding a photo of Osama in your hand you may see why many people laugh when they are told it is him. I don't have perfect eyesight, but unless the camera had some very strange lenses on it I really see no similarities other than the beard.

I don't think most of the people who doubt the official story really have theories that they want to convince people of. The theorists just seem to put up more web pages than the doubters. Look into the investigation or lack thereof.

If you would like I'm sure I could find a link to the Osama video, and plenty of sites that mention the long list of things the government has yet to explain. If you want I can give you a link to the 9/11 Commission report so you can see exactly how little it says about the actual day of September 11th, the omission of tower 7's collapse, or it's failure to cover the list of questions family members of the victims asked. Questions they promised would be answered.

As for the living hijackers theory, I think that was attributed to the names being common in the muslim world.

Personally I want to see the videos from around the pentagon (and the nearby gas station) that show a commercial airliner make impact. One would think that releasing these, or simply not confiscating the gas station's would be safe for fatherland secu..I mean homeland security. Also I wouldn't mind an investigation into the illegal destruction of evidence that was carried out as the wreckage was sent from ground zero to overseas facilities for immeadiate melting. Or any of the other dozens of strange, even creepy 'coincidences'.

And then there is building 7. Find a video...watch it freefall.

Also I would point out that it's not uncommon for a figurehead like Osama bin Laden to have body doubles on hand. The Taliban immediately denied any involvement with the attacks on the day of, but does that mean we should have taken their word for it? Even if they didn't directly plan and order the strikes it does not mean they had nothing to do with it, or that we should discount the evidence that shows they were connected to Al-Qaeda.


I wanted to get to the claim that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire. It's just plain false. Buildings collapse all the time due to fire, regardless of what they're made of. Fire codes exist for a reason, and they are usually prioritized by the number of lives at risk. Steel actually collapses faster than wood because of the warping effect that heat has on it, whereas wood needs to be burned a certain percentage through to the point of breakage. One of the first steel structures, the Crystal Palace in London, collapsed due to fire.

Furthermore the claim that steel can easily conduct heat away from the site of the fire is bullshit. Thermal energy is not like electricity, and steel being a poor conductor does not sink or dissipate heat that way. A physical property of steel, which after all is forged in fire, is that it absorbs heat locally. There is no way that the steel in the towers could have dissipated the heat from such a widespread fire. Most conspiracy sites will argue on one hand that the steel was fireproofed, yet on the other hand that the steel could have conducted the heat away from the fire. :/

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks, just that the man in the video looks nothing like Osama. If it is a body double then it is not Osama. I am making claims about AQ, I just wanted CavKiller to take a second look at the video.

I don't doubt that fire can damage buildings to the point of collapse. I just wanted to turn attention towards the video of WTC7's collapse. It collapses at near freefall speeds, and it falls into it's own footprint. WTC7 was burning for a few hours on a couple of floors, the firemen are extracted, squibs pop out floor by floor, then it falls. And by falls I don't mean gradually, partially, or with any sort of resistance...it simply falls out of the skyline.

EvelKnievel wrote

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks, just that the man in the video looks nothing like Osama. If it is a body double then it is not Osama. I am making claims about AQ, I just wanted CavKiller to take a second look at the video.

I know, I wasn't attacking you.

I don't doubt that fire can damage buildings to the point of collapse. I just wanted to turn attention towards the video of WTC7's collapse. It collapses at near freefall speeds, and it falls into it's own footprint. WTC7 was burning for a few hours on a couple of floors, the firemen are extracted, squibs pop out floor by floor, then it falls. And by falls I don't mean gradually, partially, or with any sort of resistance...it simply falls out of the skyline.

My question is, what exactly was there stopping the building from falling at near-freefall? The bottom part of the building itself? Large buildings are designed to support the load that is already suspended, they are not designed to "catch" the top 1/3rd of themselves falling from a several story distance. As for WTC7 a crapload of debris landed on every building surrounding the towers (see the link I posted earlier) and many of the nearby buildings were also in danger of collapse. It was essentially a mini-earthquake in the form of a seismic spike, and earthquakes can certainly take down buildings.

Due to inertia and gravity the only way for large buildings to collapse is straight down into their own basement. They won't fall sideways unless some sideways force is acting on them. Remember that office buildings are designed to allow maximum open space for their occupants, so the volume of the materials is much less than that of the standing building.

Silentknight wrote

My question is, what exactly was there stopping the building from falling at near-freefall? The bottom part of the building itself?

I would think that yes, for a damaged building to completely collapse as quickly as WTC7 did each floor, every joint between the many steel beams would have to completely give within those few seconds. If even a few floors would have been crushed by the collapsing parts of the building that were above them I find it hard to believe the 'crushing' of these floors would have occured simultaneously. It would set my mind at ease if the collapse had taken a few seconds more, maybe even paused once as adequate force was building on 'healthy' floors. Instead the top floor hit the ground at the same time as would an object dropped from the roof a few tenths of a second after the collapse began.

We can test this pretty easily. Hold an apple in one hand and start pushing on a 50-story framework of straws or toothpicks with the other. Before the first second passes, drop the apple. You will notice that each story of straws resists being crushed. Unless you remove a majority or all of the tape holding the straws together you'll have applesauce before your hand hits the ground.

It doesn't help matters much that Larry Silverstein (the man who leased the WTC months before with a multi-billion dollar insurance claim attached) said that he gave the order to "pull it" in an interview on PBS. Pull it is the term demolitions contractors use for controlled implosion.

I don't know for sure, I don't have any degrees in engineering or physics under my belt, but I have seen and felt the difference between a sand castle and a lego tower losing structural integrity. One falls quickly, the other comes down comparatively slowly, and in peices.

I think it is more likely that the Bush administration knew about 911 and just let it happen. Preventing the attack would not have led to the war on terror, afghanistan, or iraq. 911 caused the American people to rally around the president and to support him anything he wants to do. The "patriotism" indoctrinated from high school kicked in after 911.

I think this scenario is in Machiavelli somehwere.

Plus, the stock put options for American Airlines, United Airlines, and Boeing is obvious that some people knew ahead of time. That kind of volume does not take place unless there is a reason. Maybe it was bin Laden who traded, but someone definately made ALOT of money.

It's possible but again I have my doubts as to the deliberacy of it. They did have several intelligence warnings about Al-Qaeda's plans to attack the US that year, as well as the possibility of airplanes being used as missiles. One such attack was actually prevented prior to 9/11, so it wasn't inconceivable. The WTC has always been considered a possible target for terrorist attacks, especially after the '93 bombings.

The most likely explanation for the Bush administration's behavior is that they had their heads up their asses the way they always do. Missile defense and "Star Wars" were higher national security priorities than terrorism, and they certainly didn't take the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration seriously. Major talks on the threat of terrorism were actually postponed throughout the year 2001 until the very last minute. They were far more interested in ways to take down Saddam Hussein as opposed to Osama bin Laden.

It was on the day of that Rumsfeld wrote numerous notes describing his intent to try and blame it on Saddam. It was also shortly after the fact that Bush decided to ask Richard Clarke to find a way to pin 9/11 on Saddam. Bush's behavior in that classroom, where he stared blankly into space for several minutes, seems more consistent with someone who was caught with his pants down rather than someone who had foreknowledge.


P.S. The Skeptic's Dictionary has a good article on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html