LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   On 9/11, what/who brought down the World Trade Center? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/on-9-11-what-who-brought-down-the-world-trade-center-4175615189/)

dugan 10-06-2017 07:45 PM

On 9/11, what/who brought down the World Trade Center?
 
Just wanted to get a sense of where the General Forum stands on this.

Note: results are NOT anonymized.

jsbjsb001 10-06-2017 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 5767144)
Just wanted to get a sense of where the General Forum stands on this.

Note: results are NOT anonymized.

Planes that were hi-jacked.

frankbell 10-06-2017 08:47 PM

Oh, please.

ondoho 10-07-2017 12:57 AM

no, i think 15 years later we might be able to discuss this reasonably.

i have no opinion, just a suggestion:
faking a terrorist attack to further one's own interests - i'm sure it's been done, somewhere, sometime, also before 2001.

jsbjsb001 10-07-2017 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5767193)
no, i think 15 years later we might be able to discuss this reasonably.

i have no opinion, just a suggestion:
faking a terrorist attack to further one's own interests - i'm sure it's been done, somewhere, sometime, also before 2001.

Are you saying/suggesting that 9/11 was an "inside job" ??

ntubski 10-07-2017 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5767193)
no, i think 15 years later we might be able to discuss this reasonably.

Like all those "reasonable" discussions about the Kennedy assasination, you mean?

DavidMcCann 10-07-2017 11:38 AM

As internet rules go, "Don't encourage the conspiracy theorists" ranks just after "Don't feed the trolls". The question is too stupid to deserve a response.

colorpurple21859 10-07-2017 08:50 PM

I googled it a few years ago and came across a video proved the towers was an inside job, and google always tells the truth. :)

ondoho 10-08-2017 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntubski (Post 5767299)
Like all those "reasonable" discussions about the Kennedy assasination, you mean?

ok, you got me there :D

sundialsvcs 10-08-2017 03:12 PM

The Kennedy assassination was a cut-and-dry sniper job that only killed one person.

- - -

There is zero doubt in my mind that the three(!) WTC towers that collapsed on that day were all brought down by the expert use of exotic high explosives. This is especially evident when you watch the WTC-7 building drop into its own footprint: the penthouse begins to drop a fraction of a second sooner than the rest, exactly as a demolition expert would do.

This was expert's expert demolition ... "as good as it gets, three times in a row." If these cats could only reveal that they had done it, anyone who wanted anything blown-down would be beating a pathway to their door.

Also Remember: WTC-7, which collapsed hours later and which was never hit by anything, was the location of the "terrorism response center" for the City of New York! Obviously, the complete plan was for this building to collapse while key government officials were inside of it, trying to deal with the situation. (How it happens that they weren't there ... how they knew not to be there ... is not a matter that now needs be revealed.)

I am quite sure by now that the US Government knows who did it – there aren't that many companies on Planet Earth who could have, and even fewer of them who could have worked inside those buildings for many weeks without attracting the slightest bit of attention to themselves.

But, I also know that "the official cover story is all that you're ever(!) going to get!" :eek:

In my opinion, "there are things in this world that need to be, and that need to remain, 'State Secrets.'" And the actual truth of 9/11 is one of those things, because full disclosure would potentially reveal far too much information to future adversaries. They don't need to know what we know. They also don't need to know too much about what we did in response. They can "read between the lines" if we choose to give them any lines to read-between, which is precisely why we should give them nothing.

On the one hand, "the public has the right to know." But on the other, "Knowledge Is Power.™" Therefore, "sometimes, 'no, the public doesn't have the right to know, and in fact must not know!'"

ondoho 10-09-2017 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5767733)
But, I also know that "the official cover story is all that you're ever(!) going to get!" :eek:

i do not believe that any "official" has that sort of power - now and ever after.
that's naive.

enorbet 10-09-2017 01:46 AM

I know Americans are somewhat used to unresolved mysteries, and I suppose that's true everywhere but it is one thing for 1-4 people to meet clandestinely in a car with Jimmy Hoffa, murder and disappear his body and keep that secret (especially if all but a few witnesses are also "stopped") and quite another to keep a conspiracy of even a dozen people let alone hundreds a secret for longer than a few weeks. This is true even when the event is far from public, such as overseas drug sales to finance black ops in Nicaragua, but when who sees, who records, who reports cannot be controlled the risk of being revealed is huge and unmanageable, and therefore, unlikely at best.

Regarding 9/11 one has to ask oneself how anyone would bet on silencing any and all conspirators and witnesses as well as effectively covering up an unimaginable amount of evidence. Consider that when the previous attempt was made with the van parked under the WTC perpetrated by a handful of men, all were identified and rounded up before the year was out, iirc. The odds that even 2 out of 3 hijacked commercial jets would remain hidden long enough to hit their targets, even if only a diversion, are minimal to say the least. If we add to that crews setting up explosives and doing it in a manner that is untraceable both the comings and goings as well as the aftermath debris, all recorded on video, the odds become ridiculous. I can't say beyond any doubt that some crazed group wouldn't try but to have succeeded AND covered it up is just short of impossible in my estimation.

marius162 10-09-2017 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5767145)
Planes that were hi-jacked.

Its weight, actually.

sundialsvcs 10-09-2017 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5767859)
Regarding 9/11 one has to ask oneself how anyone would bet on silencing any and all conspirators and witnesses as well as effectively covering up an unimaginable amount of evidence. Consider that when the previous attempt was made with the van parked under the WTC perpetrated by a handful of men, all were identified and rounded up before the year was out, iirc. The odds that even 2 out of 3 hijacked commercial jets would remain hidden long enough to hit their targets, even if only a diversion, are minimal to say the least. If we add to that crews setting up explosives and doing it in a manner that is untraceable both the comings and goings as well as the aftermath debris, all recorded on video, the odds become ridiculous. I can't say beyond any doubt that some crazed group wouldn't try but to have succeeded AND covered it up is just short of impossible in my estimation.

When the US Government pieced together (probably, "very quickly") the scope and extent of what had just happened, right under everyone's noses, then I think it was also immediately obvious to all that the perpetrators would be eager to receive a post facto analysis of what the United States (and New York City) did and did not know. "Knowledge Is Power," as I said, and it's a sword that cuts both ways. So, you stick to the obvious cover-story provided by those airplanes, and keep state-secret the rest of it. And I do not disagree with that decision in the slightest.

It's extremely obvious to me what happened. (The third implosion removed all reasonable doubt.) What's profoundly disturbing is that it happened at all – that it could happen at all. The immense scope and extent of the operation is quite staggering. It dwarfs the original "bomb in the basement," and "three airplane hijackings" de-evolve into nothing more than a feint. This is not the sort of thing that you want to be truthfully analyzed and discussed on the six o'clock news . . . knowing that "whoever did it" is out there taking notes!

I'm also not persuaded that "official enemies in the Middle East" had anything whatsoever to do with this, although once again they provide a convenient group to point-the-finger to. To me, it is much more probable that a group of Americans were responsible for the planning and the execution of it. Perhaps they engaged another group to provide pilots, but the pilots really didn't matter anyway.

The bottom line, though, is: "You are never going to know." Your version is that two airplanes did it, and that's all you're ever gonna get. Because, "the truth, if too-widely spread and too-widely known, is dangerous." To me, there are extremely sound reasons for keeping a secret.

Quote:

"Loose Lips Sink Ships!"

jsbjsb001 10-09-2017 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marius162 (Post 5767914)
Its weight, actually.

What's "weight"? The buildings? The planes?

Edit: I wasn't thinking, dong! :doh:

jsbjsb001 10-09-2017 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5767960)
...
I'm also not persuaded that "official enemies in the Middle East" had anything whatsoever to do with this, although once again they provide a convenient group to point-the-finger to. To me, it is much more probable that a group of Americans were responsible for the planning and the execution of it. Perhaps they engaged another group to provide pilots, but the pilots really didn't matter anyway.

The bottom line, though, is: "You are never going to know." Your version is that two airplanes did it, and that's all you're ever gonna get. Because, "the truth, if too-widely spread and too-widely known, is dangerous." To me, there are extremely sound reasons for keeping a secret.

While I agree with enorbet and find your theory highly un-likely, just out of morbid curiosity, which "group of Americans" are you talking about?

PELinux64 10-09-2017 09:45 AM

9-11 was the SECOND ATTEMPT to blow up the twin towers. It's amazing how many survivors of the 1993 attack were in the buildings on 9-11. Why, they even tried to get me a job there, seriously. Only person missing that day seems to be Larry Silverstein. What a stroke of luck for him!

Debate time is over. It's a scientific fact 9-11 was an inside job and the debunkers have themselves been debunked:
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-.../dp/156656686X
This guy has a Ph.D so all you ignorant people with lesser degrees don't even qualify to debate him. You see, the government isn't the only one who can use credentials instead of facts. :mad:

jsbjsb001 10-09-2017 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PELinux64 (Post 5767991)
9-11 was the SECOND ATTEMPT to blow up the twin towers. It's amazing how many survivors of the 1993 attack were in the buildings on 9-11. Why, they even tried to get me a job there, seriously. Only person missing that day seems to be Larry Silverstein. What a stroke of luck for him!

Debate time is over. It's a scientific fact 9-11 was an inside job and the debunkers have themselves been debunked:
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-.../dp/156656686X
This guy has a Ph.D so all you ignorant people with lesser degrees don't even qualify to debate him. You see, the government isn't the only one who can use credentials instead of facts. :mad:

Oh, so us not holding a Ph.D means that YOU are right and no one else knows what their talking about and the debate is over??

You sound like someone who thinks everyone MUST agree with you or they must be wrong and YOU must be right. Well that says a lot more about YOU, than anyone else!

I wouldn't expect much help from other members, treating them like that, if I were you (glad I'm NOT YOU).

enorbet 10-09-2017 12:38 PM

One does not require a degree to compute odds regarding keeping secrets. Fewer is better.

-- Dirt-y Truth --

m.a.l.'s pa 10-09-2017 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankbell (Post 5767154)
Oh, please.

^ My sentiments exactly.

sundialsvcs 10-09-2017 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5767973)
While I agree with enorbet and find your theory highly un-likely, just out of morbid curiosity, which "group of Americans" are you talking about?

enorbet finds most of the things that I say "highly unlikely!" ;)

- - -

I have utterly no idea. I can't even guess. An attack like this one re-defines the word, "psychopathy." It is difficult to wrap your head around the possibility of it, which is probably why no one did.

However, I don't buy any notions like "the owner of the building did it," etc. I have no idea what the motive for such a thing could possibly be. I have no idea why any company that had the technical capability to do it – knowing damn well what a very-tiny company they keep – would not immediately go to the FBI on the very first suggestion of such an incomprehensibly heinous act. My brain does not want even to consider that someone would actually do such a thing as this, anywhere, for any reason. Let alone that people would diabolically plan it, execute it, walk into a building day after day knowing that very soon most of the people that they met in the hallways would be dead, and that they would have been the ones who killed them all. I don't want to wrap my head around the idea that any such people exist on this Earth.

The real key to the mystery of "why" would probably lie with "Building 7," the third building to collapse into its own footprint and the one that is most-unmistakably the work of demolition. As I said, this building contained the terrorism response center, and it fell straight-down into its footprint like the others, but did so hours later ...specifically, "enough time for the terrorism-response officials to go into their supposed stronghold and start reassuring the public," at which time they, too would all be killed and a mockery would be made of their folly in building such a redoubt above ground. This adds an entire layer of complexity to the puzzle of motivation: the attackers not only demolitioned the two main towers, but also then attacked the anticipated emergency-response center, and those who they expected to then be occupying it. You would anticipate that this building would be profoundly protected and constantly watched due to the nature of what it was built to contain, but its security was totally compromised, as well. It had been completely "rigged," such that you could not tell which buildings contained the stronghold when the whole thing fell smoothly to the ground.

But – I know that I don't know, and I know that I will never know, and in this particular case I don't think that I really want to know.

dugan 10-09-2017 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PELinux64 (Post 5767991)
This guy has a Ph.D [in theology] so all you ignorant people with lesser degrees don't even qualify to debate him, You see, the government isn't the only one who can use credentials instead of facts.

Can't tell if sarcastic.

dogpatch 10-09-2017 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5767733)
There is zero doubt in my mind that the three(!) WTC towers that collapsed on that day were all brought down by the expert use of exotic high explosives. This is especially evident when you watch the WTC-7 building drop into its own footprint: the penthouse begins to drop a fraction of a second sooner than the rest, exactly as a demolition expert would do.

This was expert's expert demolition ... "as good as it gets, three times in a row." If these cats could only reveal that they had done it, anyone who wanted anything blown-down would be beating a pathway to their door.

I used to work for a large construction management firm, where controlled demolition is a very important science / art, especially in tight urban quarters. Upon first viewing the collapse on TV, before hearing any official reports, I immediately said to my wife, "That building was brought down by professional demolition experts."

dugan 10-09-2017 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogpatch (Post 5768083)
I used to work for a large construction management firm, where controlled demolition is a very important science / art, especially in tight urban quarters. Upon first viewing the collapse on TV, before hearing any official reports, I immediately said to my wife, "That building was brought down by professional demolition experts."

Aah, interesting. Would you say that explosives were a third of the way up (where the planes hit, where the fire burned for over an hour, and where it's generally agreed that the collapse started), or would you say they were in the foundation (where they surely would have been for a controlled demolition)? I have further questions, of course, but let's start with this one.

I hope that as a person with some domain knowledge, you can give me a better answer than Sundialsvcs previously did (he just said the question was "derisive").

dogpatch 10-09-2017 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 5768086)
Aah, interesting. Would you say that explosives were a third of the way up (where the planes hit, where the fire burned for over an hour, and where it's generally agreed that the collapse started), or would you say they were in the foundation (where they surely would have been for a controlled demolition)? I have further questions, of course, but let's start with this one.

I hope that as a person with some domain knowledge, you can give me a better answer than Sundialsvcs previously did (he just said the question was "derisive").

I cannot answer your question as I am not myself a demolitions expert. My former job was not as a construction or demolition expert, but was a desk job where I had to know just enough of the various trades in order to do a cost analysis. From this I can say that I know it takes engineering expertise to make a tall building fall into its own footprint. Explosives must be placed in such a manner and timed to ignite in a particular sequence such that the collapse is a controlled collapse. Otherwise, some sections will inevitably topple in a skew manner and damage adjoining property. I believe the engineers who place the explosives must know the details of the building's structural design, so that the placement and timing may vary from building to building, depending upon the structural details. I think controlled demolition generally works from the top down, not from the foundation up.

Anyway, I was merely expressing, from my limited knowledge of demolition, what my immediate reaction was upon first viewing a video of the collapse. I know not what further to conclude or surmise.

enorbet 10-09-2017 05:02 PM

Who in their right mind would have contracted to deliver a successful controlled demolition of not one but at least two towers standing roughly 1800 feet tall when the tallest building ever "imploded" was just shy of one-fifth (1/5) that at 439 feet? In addition to the huge gap in height, there were no test subjects, no examples of anything remotely of a similar structural design that have ever been subjected to controlled demolition.

Aside from following the expertise (or lack of it), if we follow the (hypothetical) money who would spend many millions of dollars on such a risk since not only was there zero point of reference for the logistics of the demolition but also for preventing discovery at several points leading up to and culminating in the final event? That risk would not only be extreme but extreme for an extremely long period of time multiplying the likelihood of discovery, failure and retribution.

Just on the basis of Occam's Razor, it is simpler that mujahideen, emboldened by the David & Goliath success of effectively defeating the Russian Military wanted to make a global statement that even the US could be hit, that nobody, nowhere is safe and secure, and realizing that just striking a building anywhere in the US let alone in NYC and killing a few hundred people would have been wildly successful at achieving that goal. That the collapses occurred and thousands died was just a massive and unexpected bonus of sorts. If they failed at any of it the risk was minimal. That makes some sort of cost/benefit sense.

An internally planned and executed, long term, high exposure, treasonous plot with huge risk and the prospect of deep and furious retribution on all the conspirators and their families makes no sense. While mujahideen would be and are thought by many to be heroes among their peers for striking back at an enemy, plotters would go down in history as exceeding Benedict Arnold by many orders of magnitude, even approaching the disgust and derision earned by ol' Adolf himself. I'd sooner imagine fish riding bicycles.

dugan 10-09-2017 05:22 PM

All those people saying "it takes a construction expert so Bin Laden couldn't have done it" are aware of of what Bin Laden's family business is in, right?

enorbet 10-10-2017 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 5768131)
All those people saying "it takes a construction expert so Bin Laden couldn't have done it" are aware of of what Bin Laden's family business is in, right?

I suspect that barely entered into the plan. Mujahideen knew the value of cars as bombs and it is only a small step to planes as bombs. I doubt any of the conspirators was aiming to drop the towers to the ground. That was just bonus good luck since I doubt they understood the implications of the radical for the time construction techniques used in the WTC towers. Especially after plane impacts had been tested for, nobody even thought of the effects of a fully fueled commercial jet. That was exactly why such a plan could work. Commonly pilots of commercial jets would do everything in their power to avoid collision. It was totally unexpected that someone might actually choose such a collision, especially in Western minds where suicide is a no no and not thought to be rewarded with eternal paradise with many virgin slaves.

hazel 10-10-2017 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5767997)
Oh, so us not holding a Ph.D means that YOU are right and no one else knows what their talking about and the debate is over??

You sound like someone who thinks everyone MUST agree with you or they must be wrong and YOU must be right. Well that says a lot more about YOU, than anyone else!

I wouldn't expect much help from other members, treating them like that, if I were you (glad I'm NOT YOU).

Oh please! Can't you recognise sarcasm when you see it?

As it happens, I also have a PhD and I believe it was terrorists in planes.

ondoho 10-10-2017 02:02 AM

ah, the thread is getting interesting!

anyhow, i was thinking, i think i've never seen footage of a building collapse un-controlled?
anybody?

TobiSGD 10-10-2017 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogpatch (Post 5768103)
I believe the engineers who place the explosives must know the details of the building's structural design, so that the placement and timing may vary from building to building, depending upon the structural details.

The question then is: How do you take into account the alterations of structural design that occur by a large plane hitting the building, not only changing the structural design by just hitting it, but also by randomly weakening points in the metal skeleton of the building by burning jet fuel, before the plane actually hitting the building, so that you can plan where the explosives have to be placed?

brianL 10-10-2017 06:25 AM

C4 + thermite. ;)

sundialsvcs 10-10-2017 09:10 AM

It should be impossible to put yourself into the mind-set of anyone who would actually do something like this. (If it isn't, I don't want you to know where I live!)

This was three perfect demolition jobs – the work of a true master – using exotic materials. This is why I think that the US Government does know who must have done it: there aren't that many companies on this planet who have access to this sort of thing and the expertise to use them. And to be at the very top of their game. (If you can accomplish this, you're a master.)

What's fairly incomprehensible to me is just how the security of these buildings was so thoroughly compromised ... specifically including #7, with its supposedly-secret command center installation. Even this building "melted to the ground," perfectly.

But the actual government response is, I think, a very sensible and necessary one:
Quote:

##TOP SECRET##. "Knowledge Is Power.™" "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.™"
We are dealing with an enemy who not only had the technical capability to do such a thing, but who did it. This means that we are not dealing with an ordinary "enemy of war." It is crucial, therefore, both to understand exactly what did happen and how, and(!) to conceal that information from dissemination to, or by, the general public. The perpetrators would very much like to get a de-briefing. They must never be given one. This knowledge is dangerous.

Engineering investigators who have asked a few too many questions have obviously been ... "spoken to." Much as Governor Dewey was "spoken to" about what he should and should not say in his Presidential election campaign against FDR. I agree with this move. Some things need to be kept secret.

TobiSGD 10-10-2017 09:45 AM

My question still stands: If this would have been a demolition job, how did the perpetrators calculate the impact of the plane and the resulting alterations on the structural integrity of the building before the plane even hit the building?

Keep in mind that even for a highly skilled pilot (which the terrorists clearly were not) it is near to impossible to hit a building with such a large plane on an exact spot, with exact velocity, in a way that the impact of the plane and the burning fuel could be calculated. Even the slightest turbulence (which are quite common near large buildings) or the slightest changes in where and how hot the fuel burned would have caused all the calculations to be void.
Then look at these really very small chances to do such a thing and think about if it can be done twice in a very short period of time, since there were two buildings hit by two planes.

This might be different for building number seven, but just the impossibility of doing the calculations for the other buildings blows moon-sized holes in this hypothesis.

brianL 10-10-2017 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 5768403)
My question still stands: If this would have been a demolition job, how did the perpetrators calculate the impact of the plane

Not an expert: but doesn't velocity * mass give you a clue?
If the 'planes hit: detonate the explosives.
If the 'planes miss: don't detonate the explosives.
As soon as I saw the towers collapse, I thought surely the 'planes hit too high up to bring down the towers like that.

dugan 10-10-2017 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL (Post 5768420)
Not an expert: but doesn't velocity * mass give you a clue?
If the 'planes hit: detonate the explosives.
If the 'planes miss: don't detonate the explosives.
As soon as I saw the towers collapse, I thought surely the 'planes hit too high up to bring down the towers like that.

So you think the planes missed then. The collapse and the impact were separated by over an hour.

brianL 10-10-2017 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 5768426)
So you think the planes missed then. The collapse and the impact were separated by over an hour.

No, I'm convinced they hit. But I didn't mention hit and detonation being instantaneous - that might have looked even more suspicious.
Adopt the mindset of the "inside-job" conspirators. You know the terrorists plan. You want to escalate the "War On Terror". You devise a way to make an atrocity even more atrocious. It worked.

rokytnji 10-10-2017 11:33 AM

American made UFO's piloted by aliens of course.

brianL 10-10-2017 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rokytnji (Post 5768450)
American made UFO's piloted by aliens of course.

You know too much...exterminate...exterminate...exterminate!!!

sundialsvcs 10-10-2017 12:50 PM

Although I'm certainly not a demolition expert, I suspect that the airplane impacts did not do sufficient damage to the buildings to alter any demolition plan.   The buildings withstood the impacts, as they were designed to do.

Strange as it may seem, the entire airplane impact was a foil. Awful though it was, it was merely a distraction.

When confronted with barbarism of this magnitude, my mind switches off . . . I don't want to consider that human beings are capable of this.

ondoho 10-10-2017 01:28 PM

interestingly, i just found this in an old thread:
Quote:

Originally Posted by someone (Post 3698242)
Eyewitness FBI doesn't want you to hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIC0Kl4TKoU
Security video FBI doesn't want you to see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4O4R0LWCQ4
This is either an orange or "thermal expansion": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk


jsbjsb001 10-10-2017 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5768494)
interestingly, i just found this in an old thread:

Sorry, still not convinced.

rokytnji 10-10-2017 04:02 PM

I'll just leave this here.

Pennsylvania field

I guess. Nobody here plays Jenga either.

sundialsvcs 10-10-2017 04:12 PM

Even though it seems inconceivable to "the non-psychopaths among us" that two (or more) planeloads of innocent passengers could be sent to their deaths "merely as a feint" ...

... to me this is(!) :eek: the icy-cold reality of the heinous crime Act of War that was committed on this day.

Our "battle fleets" were still out there in the ocean. Our "armies" were occupying another boring day. Meanwhile, our country was savagely attacked by a form of Enemy that neither "battle fleets" nor "armies" were ever conceived-of to oppose. In less than twelve hours, not only did they successfully execute a mind-boggling act of terrorism and of destruction, but they also successfully struck at ... and, "melted to the ground in its own footprint" ... the entirety(!) of our so-called "anti-terrorism response!"

:eek:

And therefore "the problem for you, tasked with 'keeping We, the People™ Safe™,'" is that absolutely everything has changed!

So, what can you do? The textbook response ... which seems entirely sensible to me, given the awful circumstances ... would be this:
  • "Throw out a cover story, and insist upon it!"
  • Then, in top(!) secret, start to develop actual defenses. Keep all details of these defenses, and/or of the development thereof, likewise "top secret."
  • If anyone of the public asks too-nosy questions, point them back to the Official Cover Story.™
  • ... and, if any of them "quite-logically, would see through this," take them aside.
When faced with "an enemy like this(!)" ... Knowledge is not merely Power, but it just might be your only Defense.

"Your sacred duty" is the effective defense of more than 300 million people, a significant number of which now occupy cities such as New York. And secrecy just might be a very-major component of your arsenal against this incomprehensibly-evil threat.

enorbet 10-10-2017 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5768391)
It should be impossible to put yourself into the mind-set of anyone who would actually do something like this. (If it isn't, I don't want you to know where I live!)

This was three perfect demolition jobs – the work of a true master – using exotic materials. This is why I think that the US Government does know who must have done it: there aren't that many companies on this planet who have access to this sort of thing and the expertise to use them. And to be at the very top of their game. (If you can accomplish this, you're a master.)

What's fairly incomprehensible to me is just how the security of these buildings was so thoroughly compromised ... specifically including #7, with its supposedly-secret command center installation. Even this building "melted to the ground," perfectly.

But the actual government response is, I think, a very sensible and necessary one:


We are dealing with an enemy who not only had the technical capability to do such a thing, but who did it. This means that we are not dealing with an ordinary "enemy of war." It is crucial, therefore, both to understand exactly what did happen and how, and(!) to conceal that information from dissemination to, or by, the general public. The perpetrators would very much like to get a de-briefing. They must never be given one. This knowledge is dangerous.

Engineering investigators who have asked a few too many questions have obviously been ... "spoken to." Much as Governor Dewey was "spoken to" about what he should and should not say in his Presidential election campaign against FDR. I agree with this move. Some things need to be kept secret.

Well, old friend, while the tally is likely over 51% it is only technically true that I find "most of what (you) say highly unlikely" :D My problem with the above is that nobody was qualified to calculate how to bring down any building almost five (5) times the height of any ever actually accomplished.

Now I grant you that in some regards taller is easier since it is not an actual implosion but explosions cutting supports. The "implosion" effect is caused by gravity and in this sense "the bigger they are the harder they fall". Plus there is more margin for error when you don't care if it doesn't just melt in on itself and instead topples taking out adjoining structures. It would be a terrific challenge to cause, say, a double-wide trailer to collapse in on itself because there is so little mass. Attempts similar to this have created huge messes since the majority of the job still had to be done "by hand" after the little the explosives did. you may notic e if you view many "implosions" that shorter buildings concentrate the charges near the basement so that the greatest amount of "hammer effect" (not the dancer) can be utilized. On taller buildings there are a greater number (higher) choices which still leaves sufficient mass to come crashing down.

As this applies to WTC, once again it is just simpler, more sensible and more believable that an enemy just wanted to "hit back", make a statement and cause fear and got lucky, than some group was contracted to "do a hit".... over many months...involving large crews... in public, right under their noses, etc. and one that nobody had ever done before. Sure they would be Masters, but only a dozen or two people would know about it.... not exactly something you can put on your resume. So what's in it for them? now add versus the extreme beyond imagination risks? I'm betting there are many Muslims that think it was the Hand of Allah that crushed those buildings.

What we now know, after the fact, is that a fully fueled jetliner striking a 1400+ foot building anywhere roughly below the 3/4 height mark could and would (and did !) cause it's collapse since the degradation of structure by temperature is aided by gravity in an escalating manner finally resulting in a tipping point, "an avalanche".

As for WTC #7 at first glance it might seem harder to explain since it's height was in the 400-500 foot range, 1/5 the height of the two towers, a size that actually HAD been studied and experienced with controlled demolition. However there exists video footage from respected News TV, aired AT THE TIME, showing WTC 7 burning furiously and progressively worse until it, too, finally was structurally untenable. Here is just one account. Incidentally the embedded video didn't work for me so I had to Google it and found several.

-- News Footage of WTC 7 ---

The US Government, like all governments, is responsible for some truly heinous acts, and though I can't think like such people I have met a few and understand they exist, but one thing I know about sociopaths is they don't like risk. They enjoy extensive planning and preparation so they can prove they are superior AND get away with it. This requires control. No such level of control is anywhere near guaranteed for such an inside job, BUT the risks are quite manageable for an outside job.

Add to all this that any internal conspirators could have much more easily just placed a single massive bomb, say 10-20 times the power of Timothy'McVeigh's crude truck bomb and like him, done it all in one day with little to no exposure and accomplished sufficient outrage to enact War on Terror and Homeland Security. If you think that even too small to do the job then just imagine doing it simulataneously in 20 cities, STILL easier and safer. There was no need to build a Rube Goldberg device. Path of least resistance, Cuz.

jefro 10-10-2017 10:11 PM

When a tire goes flat on my truck I don't suspect crazy stuff. I suspect the nail sticking out of it. Guess it could be a professional hit man trying to kill me? Guess it could be a CIA plot to make me buy a new tire? Maybe the nail was 3D printed there before I stopped?

brianL 10-11-2017 04:04 AM

Fred Dibnah did it. Brits will know who he was, foreigners & ex-colonials may not. He was famous for demolishing mill chimneys, with a complete disregard for health & safety. We shall not see his like again. Loads of stuff on youtube about him:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ry=fred+dibnah

sundialsvcs 10-11-2017 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5768549)
Add to all this that any internal conspirators could have much more easily just placed a single massive bomb, say 10-20 times the power of Timothy'McVeigh's crude truck bomb and like him, done it all in one day with little to no exposure and accomplished sufficient outrage to enact War on Terror and Homeland Security. If you think that even too small to do the job then just imagine doing it simulataneously in 20 cities, STILL easier and safer. There was no need to build a Rube Goldberg device. Path of least resistance, Cuz.

... and that's what made this crime "inconceivable."

I really can't imagine what went through the minds of the public officials and experts when they began to comprehend just what had occurred, and then realized that the danger was not yet over. How they – very fortuitously(?) – made the subsequent discovery about "Building 7" and kept everyone out of there, we might never know (and should not ask). (It's also interesting that a news-reporter and camera were positioned in the right place at the right time to film the fall.)

It takes a lot of people, working together, to accomplish this. How could the heart and mind of a human being – if such people have a heart at all, which I sincerely doubt – contemplate to do such an incomprehensibly evil thing? How is it that not a single one of them showed any remorse, or betrayed the operation before it occurred? The word, "psychopath," seems much too puny to describe them.

Especially to know that they're probably living among us today. How can they bear to live? I just don't know.

ntubski 10-11-2017 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5768530)
So, what can you do? The textbook response ... which seems entirely sensible to me, given the awful circumstances ... would be this:
  • "Throw out a cover story, and insist upon it!"
  • Then, in top(!) secret, start to develop actual defenses. Keep all details of these defenses, and/or of the development thereof, likewise "top secret."
  • If anyone of the public asks too-nosy questions, point them back to the Official Cover Story.
  • ... and, if any of them "quite-logically, would see through this," take them aside.
When faced with "an enemy like this(!)" ... Knowledge is not merely Power, but it just might be your only Defense.

I have a problem with this story. If it's so logical and easy to see through the cover story, won't the "enemy" easily see through it as well? Seems like a pretty flimsy defense.

Another question is, why is the building falling carefully in its own footprint evidence in favour of this mysterious enemy.
If they are so evil and psychopathic, wouldn't it make even more sense to have it fall over and destroy additional buildings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 5768595)
When a tire goes flat on my truck I don't suspect crazy stuff. I suspect the nail sticking out of it. Guess it could be a professional hit man trying to kill me? Guess it could be a CIA plot to make me buy a new tire? Maybe the nail was 3D printed there before I stopped?

Maybe the nail came from the ruins of the World Trade center? Maybe 9/11 was an elaborate CIA plot to make you change your tire?

jsbjsb001 10-11-2017 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianL (Post 5768679)
Fred Dibnah did it. Brits will know who he was, foreigners & ex-colonials may not. He was famous for demolishing mill chimneys, with a complete disregard for health & safety. We shall not see his like again. Loads of stuff on youtube about him:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ry=fred+dibnah

While, I'm really not sure, I want to know, let's put Geeeeeee, back in to General (General forum, that is); how do you come up with that? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntubski (Post 5768781)
...Maybe the nail came from the ruins of the World Trade center? Maybe 9/11 was an elaborate CIA plot to make you change your tire?

I think you know too much! :p


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.