Commenter LarryG comments on my comments about his comment...
Larry takes exception to the idea that fire was not the cause of the WTC collapses. He points out that "full tanks of jet fuel were burning inside these buildings at temperatures higher than normal building fires." To that I say: 1) bollocks and 2) there were no full tanks of jet fuel burning inside WTC 7. Because no plane hit WTC 7.
The WTC tower fires didn't burn anywhere near as long as the Windsor Tower in Madrid did in 2005. The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hours and even though some floors collapsed, a crane remained on the roof of the building. In contrast, the South Tower was hit at 9:03 and collapsed less than an hour later at 9:59--and it fell in less than 30 seconds.
Not only that, but there had been a fire in the North Tower in 1975 that burned for 3 hours (three times as long as the South Tower on 9/11!) and spread over the majority of the 11th floor and into the core but no serious structural damage was done. This fire burned in excess of 700 degrees C.
The twin towers did not collapse due to fire--it was a controlled demolition.
LarryG argues that setting up a controlled demolition in the WTC buildings would require the permission and foreknowledge of "the ENTIRE government." He also feels that the cover-up of the crime would require the cooperation of a "massive" amount of people. To which I say, maybe--or maybe not.
As an example of how sneaky our government can be, we heard Valerie Plame testify today about the lengths to which the CIA would go to make her appear to do something other than what she did:
"The CIA goes to great lengths to protect all of its employees, providing at significant taxpayers' expense, painstakingly devised and creative covers for its most sensitive staffers."
Is it not conceivable that the same "great lengths" could have been gone to in order to keep everyone involved in the 9/11 plot from knowing exactly what they were doing or knowing exactly what the final results of their actions would be and so forth?
Also, consider the Manhattan Project--it was worked on by thousands of scientists in many sites across the country, but even then vice-president Truman didn't know about it until he became President. Information can be compartmentalized and provided only on a need-to-know basis, and people that helped 9/11 along may not even be aware that they were involved. They were just doing their jobs.
1 comment:
Clinton,
I spent some time looking at the links you referenced in your last couple of posts and I was quite amazed at the amount of material out there that supports your theory.
I must admit that I have not spent the countless hours some of these websites have gathering information to support their claim and I don't intend to put anymore than I have into it, as I don't have that kind of time.
It seems apparent that unless some government official comes forward and validates your suppositions, we will never know what really happened (as it appears that there is no evidence remaining [if there ever was] to support your claims).
I still find it very hard to believe that 9/11 went down the way you present it. Without some hard evidence I don't think either one of us can definitively prove our cases. Lack of evidence does not prove our respective theories correct. It just means we have to find better ways to prove it.
While I respect your opinions and the viewpoint you present, I will stand by mine until something happens to convince me otherwise.
LarryG
Post a Comment