About the military keeping secrets. Back in 2000 a book came out about the cold war and US submarine involvement. Blind Man’s Bluff is the name.
Anyway at the time, I was working at our headquarters where we employed an ex-bubble head how had served on the Baton Rouge. The red stick is mentioned in the book as having a collision with a Russian sub off Severomorsk. I did the math and knew my co-worker had been on board, so the next day I asked him about it. He was very cagey and did not want to answer my questions (I guess they don’t call them the silent service for nothing). I told him about the book and he borrowed it the next night.
The following morning his comment was “Holy Shit I can’t believe that anyone talked, and how they got this book published. there is a bunch of stuff in there that is still listed as secret or top secret.”
The authors BTW hung out in bubble head bars near sub bases and bought a lot of beers to hear stories. If 93 had been shot down, some writer somewhere would be hanging out in a zoomie bar buying beers with his ears open.
So put in with Czarcasm ain’t no way you could keep that secret.
So, does someone want to describe what we’d have seen and heard if for example enough explosive had been placed at key points within the core - say somewhere in the middle third of the tower - and been detonated the moment before the tower began collapsing? Or 10 minutes before.
Is it absolutely impossible that some of the explosions heard before they fell were actually placed charges? If so, can someone explain to me exactly why it is impossible?
So, have you abandoned the “It’s a coverup!” line and moved back to this? Are you going to come back to that later, after you decide you’re done with this line?
You are “debating” dishonestly. You aren’t worth anyone’s time.
Adding to that, from my own understanding: you can get soldiers, airmen, sailors,marines to keep things secret for a short while - especially if talking meant danger to your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc. and it will work fairly well.(I am rereading Webster’s ‘Parachute Infantry’ where he describes a paratrooper who blabbed about the DDay invasion at a nearby pub being pummeled by his fellow troops)
But telling the same soldiers, airmen & sailors to keep a secret for almost nine years just because the nation might feel bad, and all over an issue that was not even part of national security? Very doubtful.
If anyone did come forth now with nothing but their word, they would be ridiculed and made out to be discontented cranks. Any whistleblower beneath the top tier would need to have good documentation for their claims, and as I’ve already said, the likelihood of these sort of decisions going into a file somewhere is laughable.
If there were charges detonated 10 minutes before you would have heard very loud explosions. For there to be damage to the building the explosion would be so large you would see the windows blow out on the floors where the bombs exploded.
If there were explosives used you would see the collapse start at the point of the explosion and the building would fall down on itself with the cloud of debris originating from the bottom of the structure. Instead what we saw was the building start to collapse at the point of the plane impact. The debris was clearly dropping from above ripping the structure apart as the debris fell through it.
Says another stalwart arbiter of Straightdope values and quality control. :rolleyes:
I can name a group that would believe any unsubstantiated claim if it involved a government conspiracy.
Can’t you?
If you had put explosives in the core, you would definitely hear the sharp, distinct BANG of such charges going off. Given the power of demolition charges you would see much violence within the building. Much more violent than the ‘squibs’ most truther point to (which are happened after the building starts collapsing) - in all likelyhood you would see office furniture flying.
I am not going to say it is impossible. It is however, very, very, very, very, very unlikely.
The explosions from demolition charges would be heard pretty much through lower Manhattan. Take a look at building demolition videos on youtube and realize those are often taken from MILES away and you can still hear the charges go off.
This answer I give is ignoring things like the distinct appearance & evidence demo charges leave. It also ignores the amount of preparation needed to set demo charges.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you didn’t address the dishonest “debater” part of my post.
About as shocked as I am that people are still feeding you.
There is no way you could use small squibs whose explosions would be hidden to those outside of the structure. In normal demolition workers will remove as much excess material from the supporting column as possible. In your scenario, this was impossible so any charges would have to be powerful enough to cut through all of the excess material and damage the structure bad enough to force a collapse. In addition, your theory means that the explosion needs to be so controlled that it only damages but does not initiate a collapse. That really isn’t possible outside of Hollywood.
Yes, but they have been vilified and discredited so much, that even if they came up with the Holy Grail of conspiracy proofs, it would just be claimed to be a forgery.
And all you righteously indignant objectors to conspiracy-type theories would lap it all up.
If you are offended, guess where you can go?
I’ll give you a clue… it’s two words, 12 letters, begins with an “F” and ends with an “F”. Any ideas?
Really? Because we have plenty of cases where evidence was presented and it was accepted - watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. In all those cases there was a proper amount of evidence was presented.
So what you are basically doing is sour grapes excuses.
I doubt it, if they had all their facts in order. But thus far this has not been the case with the nutters and 911. Some of the crankier truthers tried to name a pilot once, but their ‘evidence’ was embarrassingly lacking and it fell flat.
The public at large is very receptive to logic and reason (contrary to popular belief). The only reason you’re being vilified and discredited is because your theory is completely nuts! There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING in your theory that is even vaguely compelling. You give us no explanation to why a conspiracy would be committed. You give us no idea of who you think committed the conspiracy. The theory you have put forth as to how the conspiracy transpired is ludicrously complex to the point of being comical. Any piece of factual evidence that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived beliefs of how the towers fell is handwaved away as magic (sorry, I mean you explain it away by claiming it’s top secret technology developed by a top secret government organization). Then, rather than accept that you just might not be dealing with a full deck of intelligence, you try to play the martyr card and think that anybody who speaks “the truth” will automatically be persecuted. Sorry, the only reason you’re being persecuted is because your theory is the most simple minded, incoherent, moronic thing we’ve ever heard!
Okay, let’s assume all the OTers and the general public are right on this matter - a momentous occasion in history indeed - and everything happened as we’ve been told - another momentous occasion - this doesn’t mean powerful individuals didn’t use their influence to allow the events to happen, and make their shares in the war industry skyrocket. We all know what an amazing motivator money can be.
Many folks took advantage of 911.
That is another debate entirely.
I think we’ve actually had it a few times here on GD as well.
Doesn’t mean they did, either. Is this going to be another round of “Can you prove my baseless speculation didn’t happen? Huh? Huh?”?
Are you proposing that there were explosives in the towers or not?
And that’s it? A bit like it didn’t really matter that the Pakistani intelligence agency reputedly wired $100,000 to one of the alleged terrorists? Nothing to see here, move along, sorta thing?
We haven’t been debating the OP anyway, and whether the public has been lied to is completely relevant to the topic we are discussing at present.
And what was the outcome of the previous debates?
Hang on… let me guess!
Totally ridiculous, highly unlikely, too many whistleblowers, not enough competence, etc, etc, blah, blah, ad infinitum, by any chance?