Let me explain something to you that you probably don’t have any experience with. The first hijacked plane caused a panic in Air Traffic Control centers but they did not have a script for that scenario. The 2nd plane caused even more. Every single small plane, cargo plane, and airliner over the continental U.S. was ordered to land at the nearest available airport (several thousand of them at once). That move was unprecedented and no one had any experience with it. Not all planes have transponders and yet they give radar returns so there was a huge mess of ATC trying to get all planes on the ground in the next 45 minutes which they did admirably despite the highest workload they will ever encounter.
Two airliners got mixed in with the shuffle and were impossible to separate from other planes definitively. The U.S. government and military also had no contingency plan for shooting down a domestic airliner. By the time the procedures and full realization were in place, everything was over.
Never bet on a conspiracy when you have the simple explanation of a large bureaucracy being caught off guard. They responded as quickly as they could have given the knowledge and procedures in place at the time but it just wasn’t fast enough.
One weird trait of conspiracy theorists is that they truly believe that large organizations, especially ‘the government’, are more competent, superhuman and prepared than they really are. Nope, it they are just a group of regular people who react to completely new circumstances the same way you would at your job.
He didn’t say it couldn’t be used. He said it wasn’t generally used, because it sucks at that. If you’re going to be a paranoid weirdo, you could at least compensate by honing your reading comprehension.
Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that Thermite could not be used to cut steel beams. I said:
And it is terrible at the job, and there are much better ways to cut a steel beam. Compare it to a cutting charge, which would slice through the entire beam reliably in a fraction of a second, the thermite takes much, much longer to not actually manage to cut through the beam. It also needed to be placed directly on top of the beam, which would make it only able to cut horizontal beams.
Where is all this talk of thermite coming from? I think it was ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked in diesel fuel loaded into the elevator shafts put there by people disguised as maintenance people. That stuff can blow a blow a building up really well (see Oklahoma City).
What do you have on the thermite versus ammonium nitrate fertilizer angle that I don’t know? I call bullshit until you show that your evidence is better than mine.
I agree with you about ATC, I think I already said that. They were initally confused, and the drills on that day didn’t help matters. However, the did do their jobs and passed it up the chain to the NEADS with plenty of time left.
It looks to me like the breakdown occurred after that, which of course would narrow things down even more. No thousands of people involved.
All of which the video addresses. Nobody is claiming it was a perfect controlled demolition, which seems to be the case your trying to make. Of course there are better ways to do it, but the video shows that thermetic materials could do the job.
Look at the video again. The guy cut a huge steel beam with a rig he setup in his backyard. He was just using thermate. Just think if he knew how to make nano thermite.
I know you claim it does not exist, but my first cite says it does. They actually have evidence to back that claim up, unlike you.
What cite was that? I looked back through your posts and didn’t see it.
More importantly, you’re missing the point of this thread. Why would the hypothetical conspirators use thermite? Thermite is a bad choice for demolition when there are far better well-established methods for cutting metal beams. (Also, pointing at reports of explosions before the building collapsed don’t support the thermite theory, since thermite isn’t an explosive.) Hypothetical conspirators who wanted the building to collapse would have no reason to pick a a completely unproven and inefficient thermite method over more conventional proven demolition methods.
For that matter, why is it important that the buildings collapse at all? Even if you assume that the buildings needed additional explosives to collapse, which the vast majority of qualified engineers who have looked at the case don’t agree with, why would a hypothetical conspiracy bother? Hijacking planes and crashing them into the towers would by itself be enough. Adding explosives to the buildings greatly increases the risk for the conspirators with no benefit.
This is the fundamental problem with the truther movement. You aren’t trying to construct a plausible narrative. You are starting with the premise that the government was complicit, and then grabbing any random anomaly to support that premise, ending up with a completely nonsensical theory involving thermite charges planted implausibly quickly in the building during a power-down that nobody remembers happening and no records exist of. The story makes no sense when viewed as a complete narrative, but you don’t care because you’ll believe anything that paints the government as evil.
Why is it important to have the buildings collapse? Because they did. And they looked liked buildings do when people use explosives in a controlled detonation. Never mind that buildings look like that because of gravity not explosives. Dammit I know what it looks like so I must construct a theory, no matter how wild, to explain what I saw. Never mind how explosives actually work. How long it takes to set up. How many people it would take. How much damage it would take to the interior weeks ahead of time that someone would notice. Never mind that they just happened to guess the exact floors(different on each building) that the plane would hit. Helll just to be sure
I’m sure they rigged every floor. I have seen explosions in movies and I have seen demo crews take down buildings on TV. I’m an expert.
By the way please show how “nano thermite” exists anywhere beyond the theoretical stage or in small experimental quantities at Lawrence Livermore. Oh right, it’s the government. It’s one of their secret weapons. Never mind that there are plenty of other things better suited to cut steel.
Of course the one question the Truthers can never adequately answer is “Why?” So that two years later we could go into Iraq? Really?? For oil? So how much of that Iraqi oil do we have? To put up a pipeline through Afghanistan? How is that working out? We pulled out of Iraq with no oil. We are going to pull out of Afghanistan with nothing to show for it. How could such brilliant evil people who pulled off an amazingly complicated operation without a flaw have no endgame at all? What was the purpose?
I will just point out that well before 9/11 they confiscated a 1 inch pen-knife from me (it was part of my money clip and I never gave it a thought). But they let box-cutters through? With their vicious blades?
Anyway, the “twin towers” were just a David Copperfield illusion.
Please note I dont want to appear as I’m engaging in any previous troll-like debate as I’m trying to respond to “why”.
First of all, why anything? Why does Mitt want to become POTUS? Why can’t Goldman Sachs be happy with trillions of dollars? Why eat 5 burgers? Why did Milosevic start all the wars with his neighbours? Why did Russians need to flatline Grozny? Why run with the bulls? Why would Israel spy on US? All of these to me appear unnecessary and hard to explain.
Point is, just b/c it does not make sense to you - and I’m sure that if Bush asked, you would advise him not to attack Iraq - it does not mean absence of a mental phenomena outside of your comprehension which makes sense to those who are making all those events happen.
Honestly, it is quite pathetic to have to debate at this level… the level of “why”.
I don’t think these examples and your argument using them is very good at all. All of those things have multiple plausible answers to the “why?” question; examples would be: ambition, greed, thrill-seeking, pleasure-seeking. In the absence of a clear statement from Romney or the eater of five burgers, most people don’t have any trouble having a rational discussion about why people do various things. And when any crime is committed, it is a rational and normal part of the investigation process to pursue the answer to the “why?” question. Who benefited? Who would want this crime to happen and why? I, and most police departments, don’t see anything pathetic about asking and discussing why.
What I wanted to say is that there is a “why” for everything AND that just b/c you or I or whoever else does not see it - or, perhaps, do not agree with it - it is not a proof that event did not happen differently than as it is officially reported..
What I could never figure is, even if you want to believe the CIA or the Mossad or Whoever was “really” behind the 9/11 attacks, and that they wanted to frame Al Quaeda for the attack… why would they need to crash planes into the WTC in addition to wiring the buildings with explosives and detonating them?
Why not just wire the buildings and blow them up, and then blame the BOMBING on Al Quaeda? Why bring planes into it at all???
Much clearer, thanks. And I agree, not being able to say why doesn’t prove a theory wrong. But I believe that thoughts and discussions about why are a crucial part of any discussion of mainstream or alternative theories of how something happened and who was behind it. Let’s look at some basic stuff about the mainstream story of 9/11. How: hijacked airliners crashed into buildings causing huge damage and eventual structural collapse. Who: Al Qaeda, using mostly Saudi recruits, planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and ordered by Osama Bin Laden. Why: Extreme disapproval of US policies in the middle east, coupled with a belief that destruction of US assets is a desirable response to those policies.
Add to that the fact that the same Al Qaeda leaders had tried to destroy the same target eight years before by much more conventional means, and you have a story that is supported by lots and lots of evidence and which has a plausible answer to the question of why. It is not a reason that makes sense to me in the sense that I believe I would reach the same conclusion if I were in Osama Bin Laden’s position in 2001, but in the sense that it fits his publicly known world-view and his self-confessed prior modus operandi.
It is perfectly reasonable, when faced with an alternative story, to include the question of why into one’s evaluation of it along with how and who.
Oh, I know this one. It’s because the buildings were getting old and maintenance and repair costs were out of control. Much easier to destroy them and build anew with the insurance money. The Port Authority was in on it too.
